Cristodor Georgiana Mariana

Administratie publica
Anul 2,semestrul 2,Grupa 2,I.D
5.5. SKILLS FOCUS: Argumentative Essay

Consider the following questions:

What are the different roles of violence in a political system, both in maintaining a particular
political order and in bringing about political change?
When is violence more likely to be resorted to and why might it succeed?
Is it sometimes necessary?
Starting from these questions, write a 200-250 word essay. In your essay you may mention the
situations in which government authorities may resort to force.

Political Violence
Hartogs & Arzt (1970) state an agreement among political scientists in distinguishing

political violence into Organized Violence, Spontaneous Violence and Pathological

Violence. Organized violence which is patterned and deliberate. These authors regard all

organized violence as instrumental in the pursuit of group interests and goals. Besides,

Spontaneous Violence was an unplanned explosion sat off by the unique chemistry of

internal and external conditions. Spontaneous violence also regarded as reactive,

compensatory, or gratuitous in displacement. Then, the third type identified is

Pathological Violence that committed by individuals on the basis of neuron or

psychopathology.

Grundy & Weinstein (1974) proposed that organized violence may be divided into

criminal and political types. Criminal violence is not directed at the defense, disruption or

restoration of a normative order, although it may unwittingly contribute to such outcomes.

Political violence is directed at the maintenance or change of a normative order.

Nieburg (1968) observed that political violence addresses itself to change the very system

of social norms which the police power is designed to protect.

Grundy and Weinstein add that political violence can also concern itself with maintaining

or protecting the normative order, the status quo, under attack. Furthermore, they observe
Cristodor Georgiana Mariana
Administratie publica
Anul 2,semestrul 2,Grupa 2,I.D
that the distinctions between criminal versus political and organized versus spontaneous

violence are not always clear, Criminal bands may become social bandits and finally

guerrilla movements. Similarly, a riot may be interpreted by officials as a political

conspiracy and by oppositionists as part of a spontaneous movement for change

Cristodor Georgiana Mariana
Administratie publica
Anul 2,semestrul 2,Grupa 2,I.D
Persson (1980) points to the truth that violence has had a bad press. Even more so than it is

equally misunderstood and much maligned by aggression. The term 'violence' is almost

invariably used pejoratively. However, like aggression, violence may be viewed as an

essential survival mechanism".

Politics has been circumlocutory by Lasswell as “Who gets what, when and how”.

Politics is concerned with the seizure the consolidation or the redistribution of the power

to decide who gets what, when and how. If violence is resorted to in this permanent

struggle for power, it is labeled „political violence‟. Thus political violence is the domain

par excellence of power politics. In the macro quantitative literature, political violence

generally includes all variants of domestic political violence that is violence within

polities but war generally being excluded as organized violence between polities.

Political violence also can be defined as hostile or aggressive acts motivated by a desire

to affect change in government. It used by people and governments around the world to

achieve political goals. Terrorism and holding dangerous riots in the streets to try to

overthrow the government is an example of political violence. Political violence thus

appears to be fairly well distinguished from criminal violence like homicide, assault and

battery, rape, mugging, armed robbery, gang violence and crime syndicate violence.

Political violence is a common used by people and government around the world to

achieve Political Goals. United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

states that organized violent activity for political goals. Political violence claims the right

to use force in the name of survival, self-defenses, order, justice and freedom.
Cristodor Georgiana Mariana
Administratie publica
Anul 2,semestrul 2,Grupa 2,I.D
Many groups and individuals believe that their political systems will never respond to

their political demands. As a result, they believe that violence is not only justified but

also necessary in order to achieve their political objectives. Many governments around

the world believe they need to use violence in order to achieve their political objectives in

order to intimidate their populace into acquiescence. At the same time government use

force to defend their country from outside invasion or other and to force other

government or conquer territory. Non-action on the part of the government can also be

characterized as a form of political violence.

Cristodor Georgiana Mariana
Administratie publica
Anul 2,semestrul 2,Grupa 2,I.D
Violent political conflict can be categorized in terms of the motivation
and aspirations of the combatants.

Political

In some cases the objectors have what may best described as political motivations. Some

will state that war is diplomacy and violent political conflict could be described as

politics by other means. The motivation may be to affect a political reform, or overthrow

a regime perceived as illegitimate or lacking public trust and support. Terrorism may be

used as to demonstrate the weakness and vulnerability of the regime, to reveal its

inability to provide security, to provoke government repression to help recruit followers,

and ultimately to force leaders from power. This motivation has been most common in

Latin America, and would be typical where there is an oppressed majority population that

is denied political influence.

Cultural

This motivation is most common in situations where an ethnic or religious group fears

extermination, or loss of their common identity, language or culture, In the case of

oppressed minorities, opposed by a strong, entrenched regime, terrorism may be seen as

the only available option. This is especially true where demands for politic. It may also

be combined with political motives, where the rulers discriminate against the ethnic

group in terms of jobs, economic opportunity or access to the political process. al reform

are ignored, where there are few, if any, external allies, and where the regime resorts to

collective punishment for what are seen as reasonable and justified demands.
Cristodor Georgiana Mariana
Administratie publica
Anul 2,semestrul 2,Grupa 2,I.D
Psychological

A surprising number of pro-government analysts favor this explanation, which asserts

that some terrorists are unbalanced, violent individuals suffering some form of psychosis.

Others may be egomaniacs driven to achieve recognition through violence, and who

attract a following of other dysfunctional individuals. This characterization may be

accurate in cases where terrorist appear to have no logical goal, or motivation, or a

purpose that makes little sense to normal people. This can include cases where the goal is

the psychological benefit achieved by vengeance such as Timothy McVeigh and the

Oklahoma City bombing. Psychologically motivated terrorism is simply a criminal act,

like serial killing, and doesn‟t qualify for analysis as political violence.