What is poltiical violence? Assess the on-going protests throughout the Middle East and the violent responses measure out on the part of state forces to repress citizens for demanding democratic and social change. Does repression really work or does it simply make protestors more determined in their objectives? Assuming you could speak directly to state leaders what would you advise them so as to help bring about necessary changes in a more peaceful fashion?
What lessons do we learn from the Rwanda genocide and other cases of political violence discussed in class? How would you apply those lessons to preventing conflicts and violence from erupting in Kuwait?
Any violent act inflicted by a people or government to attain a political goal is classified as political violence. When discussing the ongoing protests in the Middle East, both the protesters and governments at hand could be proprietors of political violence.
ReplyDeleteTwo main protests I would like to discuss are Libyia and Bahrain, These two countries are two different governmental types. Bahrain is a constitutional monarchy and Libyia a socialist dictatorship, the type of government is very important in this case.
In the case of a monarchy, it is simpler to use violence to silence a revolution as can be seen with Bahrain. First of all, any revolution against the king is seen to be treason and treason is punishable by death. Legally there is nothing wrong with killing mutinous civilians, its in the constitution. The citizens of the state are born into this type of thought and it isn’t seen as something that out of the ordinary.
Libya on the other hand although a dictatorship still has to go through the election process, so the citizen have the fact that they can choose who they want to lead in the back of there minds. This ‘Choice’ ideology can fuel a revolution since they chose before and they can, in theory, choose again. Once Gadhafi opened fire on his citizens he poured gasoline on a fire. These people weren’t just defending their lives; they were defending there right to choose, a right that they were born with and a right that Gadhafi proved was possible when he was elected.
What differs with Bahrain and Libya is the people have always live under a monarchy, and seeing as people are creatures of habit giving up a revolution because “it’s always been a monarchy” has a higher probability than fighting for a change, especially because the life in Bahrain wasn’t that bad. The previous statement would be falsified if life under the monarchy were unlivable. In this case desperate men become dangerous men.
If there were only one thing I could say to a ruling party it would be “ a country is nothing without the people, if the people are unhappy the country is at risk. Power is nothing without people to lead, and the whole point of “leading” is leading your people to a successful bountiful future. A leader of a country shouldn’t care about their bank account or position of power they should care about the welfare of their people and country, there is no “I” in team and there definitely is no “I” in country. If the people are asking for you to change things that means they still want you in power, if they are asking you to step down, they are probably doing that for a valid reason, try to reach a compromise, other than that know that stepping down may be for the best of the country and as a servant of a nation it is your duty to keep what is best for the nation in mind.
…. But that’s just my 2 cents
When society feels that they are not being heard, they usually turn to political violence. When a government feels that they cannot control or manage certain situations, they may use political violence. It can also be used as a last resort or could be the chosen method in order to achieve goals by either societies or governments.
ReplyDeleteThe on going protests that have been a current method for societies are occurring in countries where rights and fairness is questioned. Thus, governments may not want to deal with blame and injustice therefore, will turn to violent responses in order to suppress and ignore demands of the people. Hence, they will overlook society’s desires and rights.
If a society has been suppressed for a number of years which means tension and angst have been built over time, then protesters will always be motivated to pursue demands even if the government may condone them. This is so because society has reached a specific point where they need to be heard.
If I could speak to state leaders, the first thing I would tell them to do is make sure that their government is secular. Politics and religion are so tied up these days that people do not differentiate between the two. This causes unnecessary clashes and at the end of the day the country’s benefit is neglected. So, in my opinion secularism is the start to a more peaceful route, which is a goal all countries hope to reach.
Political violence is used by people and governments to achieve political goals. Many groups or individuals believe that their political systems will never respond to their political demands. They believe that violence is not only justified but also necessary in order to achieve their political objectives. Many governments around the world believe that they need to use violence in order to intimidate their populace into acquiescence and use force in order to defend their country from outside invasion or other threats of force. Political violence occurs when the military or other organized group seize control of the government in their country.
ReplyDeleteI think that repression plays a major role in the Arab Spring because as you can see there have been revolutions in Egypt and a civil war in Libya which are resulting in the fall of its government. The two main protests I would like to discuss are Libya and Egypt revolution.
In Egypt, widespread protests began against Mubarak's regime. The objective of the protest was the removal of Mubarak from power. Egyptians joined with the protesters in protesting their autocratic governments, high levels of corruption, and grinding poverty. Example: Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak along with his sons are in jail because as prosecutors launched an investigation into alleged corruption and abuses of power.
In Libya, Gaddafi was responsibly guilty of many more crimes against his own people, women, and children and crimes against humanity than Saddam Hussein ever was. He abolished his country's constitution and civil liberties, imposed laws based on a political ideology he made up in his head. Gaddafi and his relatives took over much of the economy even started several wars and acquired chemical weapons. He murdered all of his political opponents, threw his people in the Dark Ages, abused, raped, stole, murdered, pillaged, and plundered countless thousands of his own people. Example: the Libyan rebels caught Gaddaffi while hiding in a tunnel in Surte even killed his fifth son Mutassim Gaddafi also captured his first son Seif Al Gaddafi alive.
The thing I could say to the Arab is to change and make new ideas to phase-out the old and obsolete thinking and obsessed values flourishing across the Arabian Peninsula. But the ruling elite have not built new institutions to plan change and to view the imperatives of new trends for policy on peace and conflict resolution and human progress in a global community of nations
What happened in Kuwait 2 weeks ago was poticial violence. It defined all angeles. Kuwait is a democratic country. yet democracy went to an extreme where they crashed the kuwaiti parliment, went against the rules and desroyed Abdulla al-salem's room. This place is a respectful place, where voices of different people are heard. The crossed the "redline" and took it to the extreme.
ReplyDeleteThe example above was about Kuwait to make it clear to the readers, but looking around us approximatley 7 countries in the middleeast and arab region had poltical violence killing, verbally violating each other and so fourth.
In my opnion protesting is not the right way to send a message. There are betetr ways, speakingof kuwait we have the parliment if there was more respect then their vioces were heard and they might of changed something. Each poltical group going out and protesting is not the right way to get somehting across. Yet in the west it caused a civil war and we really do not want to get to this extreme.
We can sign things to treaties togther and solve things in a more civilized way.
on behalf of Shahad Al-Ameer s00010581
Political violence are acts implemented by governments and/or people to achieve a political goal. These acts take the form of violence that is not only justified by the group or individuals, but they believe it is necessary to attain their political goals. This usually takes place because either the groups or individuals believe that the political system will not consider their demands or visa versa. Acts of political violence include:
ReplyDeletegenocide,violation of human rights, war, brutality inflicted by a law force,starving people, torture... the list goes on. A government who does not intervene in a problem amongst its nation can also be categorized as a form of political violence. With the accelerated and massive increase of political violence in currents times, it can be said that modern nation-states go hand in hand with these acts.
In the Middle East there have been many recent events political violence. These events have taken place in countries such as Kuwait, Libya, Palestine and Egypt. Groups and individuals have taken it upon themselves to set the government straight and achieve what their demands as a nation. The youth of Egypt gathered and protested against the Egyptian government and as a result were tortured and even killed by police brutality.
I think repression achieves the exact opposite of the desired outcome. Instead of stopping people in their tracks, it adds fuel to the fire and makes for a more determined upheaval. For example, when a parent yells at a young adult for doing something wrong or off limits they will more than likely do it again and with a vengeance. The key is compromise.
If i had the chance to speak to state leaders and advise them on how to bring about the changes they desire but in a more peaceful matter that is exactly what i would say. I agree with Hisham, a leader is nothing without its people. Therefore, a country is nothing without its people. In the case of the Middle East, many of these countries which take part in political violence are Islamic countries or run by Islamic law. The main concept of Islamic leadership is unity, the Quran states “O Mankind! We created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you may seek mutual understanding, not that you despise each other..." (Qur’an 49:13). Whatever type of government it may be there is always one concept that is valid, it is there to serve the people. What good is a leader or a government of a country that people do not even wish to reside in?Either compromise or leave. If a government/ leader cannot come to some agreement with its people then it has proven that it is not worthy and it is time to step aside.
Political violence is any type of violence used by the people or the government to apply the policies they want, political violence was used lately in the Middle-East by leaders who wanted to annihilate their people desire for justice, change, freedom of speech and movement, reforms, and so on. The violence used by people in those case was more self-defense (even if Yemenis rebels tried to murder Saleh, tortured Kaddafi) against the attack of governments afraid to see the end of their reign. The answer of the people was seen as justified after the years of dictatorship they had to endure and it was even encouraged by a part of the international community, depending on the case (Bahrain was not viewed positively by Saudi Arabia because the rebels were Shi'a in the majority, many Sunni joined them). The Arab community agreed that more rights were needed in Tunis, Libya, Syria and Yemen (not parts of the GCC), but the leaders of the GCC helped each other to nip in the bud the uprising of the Bahraini people for more justice, by sending the Peninsula Shield Force (judged unconstitutional according to the Kuwaiti constitution because this shield is to protect the GCC from outside and not inside aggressions and attacks), as did the European monarchies when France was making it's revolution. Leaders democratically elected (Sarkozy, Brown) and not democratically elected (Ben Ali, Mubarak) don't like to see the system or the rules not agreed by the people; but the difference is that democratically elected leaders have to do as the people wants because the power is at the people hand, undemocratically elected leaders do as they want.
ReplyDeleteRepression can work for a time by making the people unable and afraid to act for years as in Libya, Tunis and Egypt but the majority of the time it will only make protestors more determined in their objectives as in Syria were people, despite the losses they suffered don't want to stop asking for their rights; and even if repression is successful burning embers wait under the ashes to revive the fire of revolution.
If I could speak to Assad I will tell him that it's too late for him to do reforms, that the only useful reform he can make is to surrender and to get judged because the Syrians will not let him finish what he started, unless he is judged or dead. If he really wanted to change something it should have been when he received power. Economic reforms are drastically needed, education and health need to be improved and more importantly the removal of ethnic differences.
Leaders should understand that their people when they don't have power will find means, paths and ways to retake what is rightfully theirs: their right to decide of their own destiny by themselves, in other words democracy.
Political violence is the act of inflicting harm onto people differentiated by their political groups. It could be defined as a state inflicting violence onto protestors or opposition groups within their society. It stems from conflicting views on government, political leaders and/or general national identity. Political violence has been present in societies even before the creation of state, under war between tribes and revolutions.
ReplyDeleteRecently there has been an increase in protests and civil resistance against the government in Middle Eastern states. Nations as different as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia have experienced the revolutionary wave of the ‘Arab Awakening’. The Arab spring has been described as the people wanting to bring down the regime. I feel as if the Arab countries have not grown politically and their censorship and repression over the years have led to growing tension until society snapped. It’s as if the youth are revolting against outdated regimes and dictators.
Repression and military violence against a state’s own people doesn’t help. It just paints a worse picture of the government. What states need to do is listening and understand. If change needs to happen it will happen whether it they allow it or not. Nations need to practise democracy instead of just using it as a international cover for dictatorship. If nations listen to what the people need and compromise their ideologies that would prevent all this civil drama and tension; allowing for solidarity.
Political violence can be defined as any kind any kind of behavior involving physical force with the intention to revolt against, change, or influence political behavior and decisions. The on-going protests throughout the Middle East are unique to this region, not in the sense that they are the first of their kind (they are not: Tunisia and the protests for their suspended constitution, Egypt and strikes, Libya and the placement of a republic all occurred in the early 20th century) but in the sense that they have used technology, risen against monarchies and dictators in power for years, gathered international support and recognition, and been made up of more than just one social strata of peoples. In the case of Bahrain it was the majority population against minority leaders, in Libya it was the population against a dictator in power for numerous years made up of rebel groups from various tribes, in Egypt the same but with young, urban cosmopolitan-esque citizens. Each one is unique, but somehow similar. We as Arabs have asked ourselves what it is that makes our region so susceptible to dictators, and now, so susceptible to protests. But one thing we do know for sure is that repression does not work, instead it stokes the fire further, pushing protestors to become more determined in their objectives, more fervent in their demands, and more convinced that their way of living is no longer acceptable. Here, media has played a large role in pushing protestors to becoming more resolute in their requests. In covering the protests the media functioned to legitimize the rebellions claims, and having them unmet would mean further coverage (“The failure of the Syrian government to meet demands…” or “Protestors demands were left unmet, and the Libyan dictator sought to crack down upon further rebellion”). This acted, and still acts, as impetus against repression.
ReplyDeleteIf I could speak directly to state leaders I would advise them to not take their power so seriously. Everyone is disposable. Everyone is replaceable. And to think otherwise would be, bluntly, stupid. The only way for necessary changes to be made in a peaceful fashion would be the creation of public forums. We should go back in time, in a sense, to democracy in its purest form perhaps even Athenian democracy. A direct form of democracy where representatives are not sought out or elected, but instead citizens can vote on legislation and law themselves. This would bring about necessary changes, the changes the people are asking for, by taking them from the sources themselves as opposed to elected representatives of the “rebel” groups where information could be changed, and personal motives could pollute talks.
S00013050
Political violence is acts utilized by government, political groups or citizens as means of either sending a message or reaching a goal. Acts of violence can be as explicit and visibly brutal as the conditions in Syria or it can a systemic marginalization and violations of basic human rights such as Egypt’s case. A government or international community passiveness in responding to crisis is also an act of violence. The on-going protests in Syria, Egypt, and Libya are a greater threat to the current regimes than any previous protest, these protest are unique in a sense that it’s a bottom up reform and the demands are now aimed at changing the entire systems and further inclusion. The visibility of these acts in a public sphere (internet and media as well) gave courage for others to make the same demands. Since these acts threaten the very core of the regime and it legitimacy, acts of retribution have been extremely violent and repressive. Since false promises and bargains are no longer accepted by the people, physical annihilations of the protestors are the “final solutions”. Repression can be a deterrent, but without a termagant effect. I would not have much to say to the current leaders, however for the sake of this blog I would tell them that equal and accessible public participation for all the citizens (and non-citizens) is the only power is maintained
ReplyDeletePolitical violence is a common means used by people and their governments to achieve their political goal. and NO, repression is not the way to solve the peoples demand for democracy nor social changes. a great example would be the protests that happened in Egypt a while ago. if the government had not ignored the peoples need then the revolution would have never started because the more a leader represses his people the more fury and rage will accumulate and will result in one point or another help from the outside whereas this will give "people" from the outside to go in to that state and do their agenda under the name of helping the people but in reality their agenda is to exploit the state. by saying that, I don't mean that every time a protest happens the leader should respond to it but in the case of Egypt it took too long for the people to respond to what they were living thru like poverty, fake promises and many more. but by repressing peoples protest leads to many extreme behavior and ideas that could have been avoided but will happen because the people want to be heard.
ReplyDeleteto all the leaders of the world, the people are the ones who control the states security, economy and politics so whenever you see your people demanding change or reform or more freedom always listen to them, you might find what they are demanding is something small compared to what will happen if you don't.
Political violence is violence outside of state control that is politically motivated.
ReplyDeleteSome people argue that democratic regimes allow enough political participation to diffuse the possibility of political violence by providing more options for political opposition. However, engaging in regime change may actually increase not reduce, the threat of political violence, especially if that change is violent.
Democracies that are victims of political violence may curtail certain freedoms in order to increase security, creating what some have called a “surveillance state.” However, these moves may erode democracy and contribute to greater political violence by providing further proof that the state is conspiring to destroy its opponents.
S00012522
We use the latest graphic designing software devising creative instinct, latitude of graphic design competence, depth of expertise and significant resources which eventually lets our clients unhitched graphic design services. We are a one- stop- shop for all your creative needs accommodating full- fledged graphic design services that capture the charisma of your business.
ReplyDeleteDigital Marketing Agency india, PR Companies, Graphics Designing, Web Development Companies
Great blog. :)
ReplyDeleteBrand Consultancy India