Besley and Persson define political violence as a form of violence perpetrated in the attainment of political goals (1411). It includes violence used by violent non-state actors against civilians or states, violence used by a state against non-state actors or civilians, and violence used by a state against another state. A broad range of empirical evidence associates political violence with weak democracies. This is because weak democracies have weak institutions and weak representation. The lack of political equality, whereby members of different groups do not possess substantially the same opportunities or rights to actively participate in the political system, leads to political violence (Dautrich 83). Political violence ranges from terrorism, police brutality, genocide, kidnappings, rioting, rebellion, or treason to non-action from a state, such as denying opportunities, rights, or resources to political groups. In most politically-motivated violence, the perpetrators are convinced that the political system or the state under which they are represented will never address their demands (Lupu and Peisakhin 836). Thus, they believe the only way to reshape the political system accordingly to their political worldview is by violence. They consider this means as necessary and justified in achieving their political objectives. This paper will discuss whether political violence is a form of political participation and whether it is legitimate.
Actors who believe their political voice is not heard through formal channels resort to violence, especially in weak democracies. The early stages of democratization lead to an intensively competitive environment between several political and social groups, and thereby, interests collide (Muller 26). These democracies lack competent state institutions strong enough to regulate or absorb high political competition. For instance, fiercely contested voting could result in political violence if people are not confident with the voting process or institutions. While political violence can be used for selfish political interests, it is mostly used where a particular social group is given an inadequate opportunity to express itself in the political process. Weak political institutions are also incompetent in providing equal representation; thus, people see it as necessary to engage in political violence. Therefore, political violence is often the last resort form of political participation. According to (Muller 17), political participation involves actions taken by citizens in a certain state aimed at influencing collective decisions within the political system. Traditionally, political violence is not associated with political participation. However, there are conventional and non-conventional means of political participation. Conventional political participation includes actions such as writing letters to government officials or voting. In contrast, unconventional political participation includes actions such as boycotts, wild strikes, demonstrations, rioting, sit-ins, tax strikes, and traffic blockades (Besley and Persson 1413). Therefore, activities associated with political violence are typically linked to unconventional participation.
Unconventional means of political participation are indeed means for underrepresented political groups to express their grievances if the political system in which the conventional forms of participation work greatly needs radical reforms. Political violence, therefore, is a manifestation rather than necessarily being dysfunctional. It appears unplanned, unexpected, mostly spontaneous and unconstrained within the functional political system it occurs. Unconventional forms of political participation are the most effective means for some political movements when the political system is characterized by high heterogeneity, low degree of institutionalization, unstructured decision making and boundaries (Lupu and Peisakhin 839). For example, the Brooks Brothers riot in 2000 in Miami-Dade County was a form of unconventional political participation in a situation where conventional means would not have been ineffective. It was during the 2000 Presidential elections when canvassers in South Florida decided to isolate themselves from the media to do a vote recount after the initial counting revealed a close margin in favor of Republican candidate George W. Bush. Republican supporters and staffers demonstrated against the recount and the sudden change of plans in the recounting process. The protests quickly turned violent as the perpetrators tried to stop the canvassers and the recount by all means.
Political violence is a form of political participation because it is accompanied and signed by political demands or statements. In most cases of political violence, the actors leave no doubt about what they intend to influence within the political system. The 2000 Brooks Brothers riots had a clear political demand and interest, stopping the opaque voter recount. According to Dautrich et al., those denied political rights such as free press, free speech, and voting often cannot exercise influence over the political process through formal channels (83). The canvassers in South Florida decided to conduct the recount in a room inaccessible to the press, and thus, the free press was denied. Additionally, the canvassers did the recount to increase the chances of Al Gore emerging as the winner, which the rioters saw as disregarding their voting power. The protestors aimed to have their political demands met. Some wanted to restore transparency in the voting recount, while others wanted to end the recount. The political grievances accompanied by political violence make it a form of unconventional political participation. In this situation, there was an urgent need to have the demands addressed. The urgency limited conventional political participation.
Political violence often occurs as a manifestation of a political system with a legitimation crisis. Social unrests in the United States have occurred as actors express dissatisfaction with the political system. This influences the level of violence in the social unrest. According to Sousa, it emanates from ideological and social factors closely linked to interest groups, political parties, and dynamics of political system and competition (169). For example, the 1966 Dayton race riots were caused by the perception of an illegitimate political system and institutions by a section of disadvantaged citizens. Dayton had experienced racial tensions as it was one of the most segregated cities in the country. The minority group, African Americans, felt underrepresented in the political system, which could have led to discriminatory city services, neglected schools, and impoverished living conditions. These situations, including outright discrimination, compromised the legitimacy of the political system in the eyes of the marginalized and oppressed African Americans. Since they had exhausted all forms of conventional political participation, they took to the streets for large-scale rioting on September 1.
All forms of political violence have wide-reaching negative consequences on the entire society. The 1966 Dayton race riots had detrimental economic repercussions for Dayton as businesses were destroyed as well as many companies shut down and relocated to other cities. Also, most forms of political violence are dangerous as they lead to deaths, injury, and destruction of properties. Tens of people were seriously injured after they were trampled, kicked, or punched during the Brooks Brothers riots. The 1966 Dayton race riot claimed the life of one protester, over 30 people were injured, and property worth $250,000 was destroyed. These clearly demonstrate that political violence is not a legitimate form of political participation. Also, the legal forms of unconventional political participation, like peaceful demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and picketing, are free of violence.
Works Cited
Besley, T., and T. Persson. “The Logic of Political Violence.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 126, no. 3, Aug. 2011, pp. 1411–45, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr025.
Dautrich, Kenneth, J. et al. Central Texas College: The Enduring Democracy. Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (6th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US), 2020.
Lupu, Noam, and Leonid Peisakhin. “The Legacy of Political Violence across Generations.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 61, no. 4, Aug. 2017, pp. 836–51, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12327.
Muller, Edward N. Aggressive Political Participation. Princeton University Press, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400870455.
Sousa, Cindy A. “Political Violence, Collective Functioning and Health: A Review of the Literature.” Medicine, Conflict and Survival, vol. 29, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 169–97, https://doi.org/10.1080/13623699.2013.813109.
write