A man has created the state, and the state has created a citizen. As we all know, the state authority has to control its citizens. Of course, managing people is not an easy task. It does not matter whether it is one person or a large mass of people, their management is always based on the political violence, to a lesser extent, on the respect, which was generated by admiration. Authority, in fact, is the violence, but not obvious. Humans can admire the power and respect it, but without force and violence there is no any authority. One political analyst said that the violence is a great conundrum of policy.(Ahn, 1985)
So, state is inseparable from the political violence. Moreover, the violence as a political phenomenon cannot be understood outside the context of such an important thing as authority. There has always been the kind of progressive representatives of the authority, who have come up with a variety of ways of management of the society. It is possible to define a lot of initial sources of power and domination. The most indisputable of them is force, which appears in many different forms. It should be noted that there is a wide range of opinions about the power: from a literal comparison of it with force and physical violence to a complete denial of its connection with force.
During the development of government structures people have been forming various political systems. Every system has its pros and cons. Undoubtedly, the political cruelty plays a significant role in all of political systems, but of course, not every of thesm abuse them. So, there is the violence as a form of government, but at the same time none of the forms of government can exist without so-called political violence.
The violence is the eternal companion of the humanity: wars, revolutions, assassinations, repressions exist in the history of mankind since ancient times. However, it should be noted that the political violence has played a variety of roles in the life of society. Different states and political parties use it in their own way, pursuing different goals. On the one hand, the political savagery allows making important transformations in the society; but on the other hand, such unlimited political brutality as terrorism is able to become a source of destabilization in any country.
Consequently, the humanity has been always accompanied by political savagery. However, is the role of this eternal companion of humans so enormous? Let's make a modest attempt to analyze a role of the political violence in different political processes and systems.
As we have already recalled, all of the states have been constructed by means of the political pressure. Mankind has always been obsessed by power and cruelty. Of course, the realization that humankind is obsessed with the violence is unpleasant (especially for the contemporary person, who is accustomed to the democratic values); however, at the same time we should clearly recognize that without the extreme force formation of any state would be impossible.
In the contemporary society people are used to thinking that the government should protect citizens and facilitate their lives; but at the same time in every country should be a representation of crime and punishment. In democratic states the violence, or rather the punishment for violations of the law also exists. In connection with this it should be noted that some political analysts believe that the political violence is most effective in a case of prohibition of some actions.(Wrong, 1979) However, in the countries, where prevails democracy the government does not abuse the political brutality. In democratic societies the violence is something quite unusual.
So, a member of democratic society is not used to the political savagery. However, in the countries that were totalitarian in some period of time, ideas of the political savagery are a little bit different. The reason for this is the existence of such thing as the collective consciousness, or national psychology. For example, the American believe that such a Soviet security agency as KGB is an example of despotism; but the Russian can consider KGB to be an example of governmental greatness.
The choice of form of the political brutality depends on the political system, which prevails in country. So, more democratic (but not less effective) is the hidden ideological compulsion: so-called propaganda is very powerful thing, which is able to force the whole country to believe in something. Less democratic is the direct physical violence, which is more acceptable in states with totalitarian or authoritarian regimes.
There are two basic forms of the political violence. Firstly, it can exist in the form of direct application of force (war, armed insurrection, political repressions and terror). Secondly, the political savagery can be indirect (hidden); this type of violence is expressed by various forms of psychological pressure, political interference, propaganda, etc.
So, the character of the political brutality is closely connected with the form of implementation of political authority. The power can be implemented in two basic forms: the domination and leadership.
The first form of power means the absolute dominance of some class or group in the society. It is based on the use of violence by the extreme, direct forms (not only by the physical, but also by the ideological and psychological coercion). Such a form of the government is typical of the autocratic regimes.
In the countries, where a democratic system is predominant, the authority is implementing in the form of leadership by means of the convictions, influences, economic incentives and the use of indirect ways of coercion. So, even in the democratic states there is the political violence, however, it is reduced to a minimum and limited by clear legal and ethical rules.
It’s important to understand that in the democratic society there are different social interests too. Moreover, the violence in democratic states is often caused by the incompatibility of interests of different social groups. This incompatibility often forces people to resort means of coercion for the implementation of their objectives. However, democratic regimes are characterized by the policy of agreement between various social groups; but of course, such agreement is very complicated process, which depends on the long-standing democratic traditions and the level of political culture in the society.
There a lot of cases, in which political forces have been obsessed by the cruelty. However, during times of revolutions and coup d’états, it’s impossible to avoid the violence. Consequently, when political forces are organized in order to overthrow the existing government, they utilize a variety of methods of the political barbarity.
In connection with this it’s worth recalling a contradictory, but brilliant expression, which says that the end justifies the means. Consequently, the political violence can be justified or even necessary in some occasions. The violence is fair in the case of response to unprovoked armed aggression or during the time of suppression of armed rebellion. Also, the political ctuelty can be justified if the opposition intend to overthrow the autocratic government.
Moreover, the political brutality has long become a part of the folklore or even national pride. People are often proud of their national heroes (politicians, soldiers, etc.), who have been fighting against the enemies of liberty; and such exponent of non-violent protest as Mahatma Gandhi is an astonishing exception. Consequently, the political violence has already become a part of life of every nation.
So, we shuold understand that it’s very difficult (or even impossible) to change the government without cruelty and punitive measures; however, to retain power without the use of coercion and harsh political measures is even more complicated. After the seizure of power, new governing elite should solve another important challenge - how to restore order in the state, and of course, how to retain control over the society. Usually such universal instrument of the authority as violence helps them to solve this problem.
In connection with this we should pay attention to opinion that representatives of the authority should use very severe punishment to suppress the effect of aggression; however at the same time some researchers believe that application of lenient sanctions is more effective.(Buss, 1961)
Moreover, it is worth noting that political elites may be overthrown, not only when they are losing control over the means of force, but also when they behave in a hesitant way in that situatioins, when the application of political determination and rigidity is necessary. Italian sociologist and political scientist Vilfredo Pareto argued that the absence of determination is one of the main reasons why the political elite loses their power.(Pareto, 1968)
So, we can begin thinking that there is some closed circle, because as is well-known, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Consequently, cruelty begets cruelty. Let permit ourselves to recall the words of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who said that a person, who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.(The Nietzsche Channel: Beyond Good and Evil. Epigrams and Interludes. (n.d.)) Consequently, people, who are fighting against the tyranny and injustice, can become the new tyrants.
Also, there are such occasions, when the political brutality controls the whole country. We all know about the USSR - state, which was constructed by the terror. In the Soviet Union cruelty and repressions were commonplace as fog in the Great Britain. However, on the example of this country, we cannot say that terror begets terror. Control over the Soviet citizens was so intense, and repressions were so widespread that the nations, who have been residing in the Soviet Union, began considering that the political violence is natural thing.
Moreover, some scholars associate the peak of political violence of the 1930s in the USSR with Joseph Stalin and his own peculiar personality and paranoia.(Shearer, D. (2013, March). "State Violence, Repression, and Governance in the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1950s" | David Shearer - Academia.edu.)
However, we should note that after the death of Joseph Stalin the situation in Soviet Union has changed: new authority of the USSR has initiated some attempts to democratize Soviet society (processes of the Khrushchev Thaw and De-Stalinization).
The USSR is a prime example of how the national psychologies are changing under the influence of the political violence and coercion. The impact of these political and social conditions can be traced even today. Even in the contemporary Russia there is a strange type of citizens, who consider Joseph Stalin to be the image of ideal ruler, whereas the whole world believes that this Soviet leader was a tyrant. Moreover, the political violence begets the atmosphere of fear; it transforms nations into the passive object of political manipulations.
So, it is important to note that the political violence does not always cause various riots and social uprisings. Sometimes total control and repressions are able to turn the entire nations into the obedient frightened masses.
Political activities connected with the violence often cause high emotional tightness in the community.(Apter, 1993) Even though some scholars believe that the domination, based on the political cruelty can be effective only for a short period of time, Soviet Union remains the prime example of how to seize the power and keep it by using different directions of the political violence for decades.(Miller, Rowlands & Tilley, 1989)
However, it’s also worth noting that the Italian scientist Vilfredo Pareto wrote that if governing class uses the force and coercion in moderate proportions, it can rule forever. However, until now no one has succeeded in this.(Pareto, 1976)
A representative of the modern democratic society is very hostile to any encroachment on his liberty, and of course, such point of view is more than understandable and natural. We have drawn a large part of our attention to negative aspect of the political violence. However, as we have already recalled, sometimes the political brutality may be justified or even necessary. So, let's draw a little part of our attention to the classic. There is such interesting personality in the history of human thought as Niccolo Machiavelli, who has written the political treatise “The Prince”.
Machiavelli argues that the ideal ruler should be moderately severe and cruel. However, here we are talking not about the abuse of violence, but we mean a just ruler, who utilizes the political violence as an instrument of suppression of the destructive social elements that threaten to break the law. According to Machiavelli, wise prince should use the political brutality to specific individuals, who really deserve to be punished. Moreover, this punishment will become an example for other people, who intend to violate the law.
Also, Niccolo Machiavelli, who has often been called the founder of contemporary political science, argues that it’s impossible for the new ruler to avoid the imputation of cruelty, in connection with the complex social and economic circumstances that the new head of state has to solve.(The Prince. (n.d.))
So, the political violence as a means of achieving political objectives has a number of features and forms. The institute of government is inseparably connected with the political cruelty. Power can takes various forms: violence and coercion, punishment and encouragement, control and management, competition and cooperation. The application of violence can be both negative and positive. Moreover, it can be barbaric, but in other cases it can be sophisticated. The political violence has a great influence on the strength of the institute of government.
The application of such a universal tool of power as the political brutality is directly dependent on the political system, which exists in the state. Even though the widespread use of violence is usually typical of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, in countries with a democratic regime it also exists. The political savagery is using for a change of government and for retention of it, or even for the maintenance of existing order in state, etc. Moreover, sometimes the application of the political brutality is necessary. So, such political instrument as the violence is versatile.
Moreover, the unity among scholars in understanding of this political phenomenon is absent. However, numerous political scientists, sociologists and other scholars have studied it in very detailed way.
Some scholars are arguing that the political cruelty is a terrible thing; however it’s impossible to deny that mankind has been accompanied by the violence throughout whole its history: starting from the ancient empires and ending with modern political events. The political violence was evolving and changing together with the humankind.
References
Ahn, C. (1985). Social development and political violence: A cross-national causal analysis. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Apter, D. E. (1993). Democracy, violence and emancipatory movements notes for a theory of inversionary discourse. Geneva: UNRISD.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Miller, D., Rowlands, M. J., & Tilley, C. Y. (1989). Domination and resistance. London: Unwin Hyman.
Pareto, V. (1968). The rise and fall of the elites; an application of theoretical sociology. Totowa, NJ: Bedminster Press.
Pareto, V. (1976). Sociological writings. New York: Totowa.
Shearer, D. (2013, March). "State Violence, Repression, and Governance in the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1950s" | David Shearer - Academia.edu. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://www.academia.edu/3305126/_State_Violence_Repression_and_Governance_in_the_Soviet_Union_from_the_1920s_to_the_1950s_
The Nietzsche Channel: Beyond Good and Evil. Epigrams and Interludes. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/works-pub/bge/bge4.htm
The Prince. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2016, from https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/complete.html#chapter17
Wrong, D. H. (1979). Power, its forms, bases, and uses. New York: Harper and Row.
