Name: Mohamed Hashi

Course: SOA-1101

Date: 8 March 2023

Prompt

1. Analyze the relationship between violence and power.

Power and violence are diametrically opposed in practice. They are equally capable of

causing and destroying one another. Each act of violence can be stopped, avoided, or even

controlled with the use of power. Violence also detects power in a way that could make it less

valuable and reveal its hidden characteristics. Everywhere there are leaders who are in charge of

a group of powerful individuals and followers who obey and adhere to their orders, there is

frequently the possibility of both violence and power. Hence, in politics, violence only refers to

certain followers trying to remove the ruling class in order to either seize their authority to

increase their own power or escape the power that has been unlawfully exercised. Power also

interacts with violence in two distinct ways; either it is utilized to prevent chaos and crises of

violence and to rightfully safeguard the institution from such nasty individuals, or it is thought of

while attempting to tyrannize and dominate their own power.Therefore, there is a correlative link

between violence and power. In some cases, violence challenges power in several ways for both

wrong and right motives; on one occasion, it is used with the aim of overthrowing, challenging,

and threatening those who are in power for the objective of self-benefit, and on other occasions,

it is simultaneously used to prevent the dismal impacts of power and to liberate civilians with no

basic rights. On the contrary, power is also used to evade violence and its harmful outbreaks and
calamities. In addition, by instilling terror in the hearts of legitimate members of the government,

violence may also be used to seize control. Hence, fear might lead government officials to cede

their authority to people who are rebelling against them. It is also quite risky to use direct power

to cease such acts of violence because that may harm and may steer the devastation of power.

Ultimately, power and violence both have negative and positive sides; while power promotes

social cohesion, it may also lead to tensions between citizens, making the nation more brittle,

cleavable, and underdeveloped. On the other side, violence can be used to eliminate legitimate

authority, which will have such weak political sway under a centralized government, as well as

to eliminate power that has been mishandled.

How does violence challenge and destroy power?

Power exists because of the obedience, respect, and trust of its followers. However, there

may be a case where those in power undermine the trust and respect of their followers by using

their power in a way that violates the constitution. This is when violence is very capable of

diminishing or even destroying the systematic effects of power in society. This is because in this

instance, the civilians share one common issue that may impel them to rebel against and take

over those who are in power. Let’s take the example of a dismal leader who has been overthrown

by his civilians through violence. Muammar Gaddafi was the de facto leader of Libya. He took

over the country after overthrowing Libya’s previous leader by leading a military coup against

the Libyan government. He was Libya's leader for nearly 44 years. Even though he positively

enhanced the economy of his country, he politically violated the institutions of his country and
used his power to keep his people under his control, where no one was able to raise concerns or

queries against his leadership. He unbiasedly selected the government representative members

after he decided only members of his family would be government members and denied the other

civilians the opportunity to participate in the government. " Gaddafi lashed back with

unprecedented violence against his own people while at the same time telling members of the

press, All my people love me" (Webley). After his political violations against his own people.

This eventually impelled the Libyan civilians to form groups of rebellious forces. These groups

fought against Gaddafi’s government, and they ultimately took over the capital city of Libya.

They eventually captured Gaddafi and brutally executed him for what he had done to them. This

example shows how violence can be used to avoid the misuse of power and how it is possible for

power to be wiped out by violence.

Moreover, violence also protects people from the harm of power. It can be used to retain

people’s freedoms, rights, and equality. It brings back the rights of the people that have been

abducted by the power. Let’s use a similar example, but with a different leader who used his

power to eliminate particular people from among his civilians based on their race. This example

is based on my own experience since it is regarding my home country. Before Somaliland

separated from Somalia, the whole of Great Somalia was led by a tyrant leader named Mohamed

Siyad Barre. He used his power to suffocate and wipe out the Isaq tribe, which was one of the

enormous tribes of Somalia. He politically oppressed them and prohibited them from joining and

contributing to the government. He also executed and arrested anyone from this tribe who was in

the government before he came to power. The jails in every city were filled with former

politicians of the Isaq tribe and other Isaq members who were concerned about his leadership.
Finally, the Isaq tribe managed to formulate and prepare an armed insurrection against Barre’s

regime. They sneakily used to hunt anyone in the government and began assassinating some of

the most highly respected of his government members. After five years of horrific civil war

between the government and the Isaq tribe, this tribe eventually overthrew Barre and his

autocratic regime. The rest of his government members fled to the south of Somalia, and the

north claimed their own country in 1991, which was named Somaliland. This example gives us a

significant understanding of how violence is the cure for misused authority.

Is it risky to use power to regulate or stop the violence?

While avoiding violence, using direct authority is unquestionably dangerous. According

to Max Weber's discussion in Politics as a Vocation, utilizing force with authority might be

dangerous and risky for the power itself. "Power is the necessary instrument but never the point

of politics. But Weber makes clear in both lectures that to use power is to play with the devil and

risk always the Faustian loss of one's soul" (Weber, XXXIX). As stated in the aforementioned

remark, power is susceptible to misuse depending on how it is put into practise and handles

violence in such circumstances. For instance, there are occasions when civilians congregate and

prepare protests in order to achieve their common goals through physical violences rather than

compromised negotiations. The aim of these civilians on these particular occasions is to make

their voices and opinions heard publicly in order to influence and raise their concerns against a

government policy that might seem unfair and unbearable. These are serious cases when the use

of power needs to be meticulously careful. In these instances, it is quite precarious to use direct
power with the aim of ceasing these kinds of civil protests because that may put those in power

in jeopardy. That is why governments do not use the armed military against these kinds of civil

protests. Usually, governments use cold power, where they either put these protestors in jail or

negotiate with them to avoid the eternal impacts of these protests rather than killing or harming

civilians.

Thus, let’s use an epitome to give a tangible demonstration of this matter. In 2020, an

Afro-American man named Georg Floyd died in police custody. Floyd’s murder has led to a

series of worldwide protests. These protests led to a serious domestic outbreak of violence in

various states in the US. The US citizenry has begun to protest against police brutality and their

lack of accountability towards black American civilians. This was a serious local incident in

which the erroneous reaction of the power could have led to calamity for the whole country.

However, the US government answered this case with justice after they brought the murderer to

a criminal trial and sentenced him to 21 years in jail. "The Justice Department announced today

that former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin, 46, was sentenced to serve 252 months

in prison with credit for time served for depriving George Floyd Jr. for his constitutional

rights"(Former Minneapolis Police Officer). This is a clear example that shows how power is

always cautious when it comes to dealing with a potential violence issue. Even those with power

or those who are in power are literally aware of the risk of using direct power against such

violence, which is why it is not often used in these cases at all.

Why is violence important for the state?

 State politics are erected on the basis of violence. "Every state is based on force, Trotsky

remarked at Brest-Litovsk.3 That is indeed the case. If there existed only soci- eties in which

violence was unknown as a means, then the concept of the "state" would disappear" (Weber, 33).

Every state is founded on the use of force, and as stated in the aforementioned quotation, it is

violence that mitigates the effects of this force on the populace. Let's look at a situation where

the state is divided into many political spheres. In some instances, after their term as the

dominant party in a democracy has come to an end, the ruling party will try to vehemently urge a

prolongation. As a result, there are political difficulties between the state's various political

factions, and they started arguing about the case that the ruling party wanted to be extended.

Following their attitude of resistance, the opposition parties begin to announce political protests

in opposition to the ruling party's desire to extend their tenure of power. As a result, the

opposition party's supporters among the general public are compelled to begin violent protests

and other acts with the assistance of the members of the opposition party. This pushes the ruling

party to alter their demand for the prolongation of the current ruling period in order to prevent

the negative effects of the opposing party's protest. This illustration demonstrates how protest

violence prevents those in authority from breaking the law, which aids the state in managing its

political breach.

On the other hand, a state itself may employ force, such as the military or police, to

uphold the law and preserve order throughout the nation. This can be viewed as a means of both

protecting the populace and averting turmoil. To ensure that the rule of law is upheld and
adhered to by its population, the government is striving to assert its authority over them in this

situation. As a result, the government is forced to maintain control over its people. The state uses

violence to repress dissent, including protests and uprisings that might be considered a threat to

its authority. This might be viewed as a means of preserving order and avoiding chaos. This

provides protection for those in positions of authority and shields them from destruction. A state

may also employ force to seize control of a certain group or area. This might be viewed as a

means of preserving the state's geographical integrity and sovereignty. More crucially, a state

may resort to violence to maintain its security, as it may do to combat terrorism or other external

threats. In this way, the interests of the nation and its people can be safeguarded.

Overall, as was stated in the essay, it has become clearer how power and violence are

related. The conclusion of the discussions on this subject is that power and violence are

diametrically opposed to one another because of the conflicting ways that they work in such

communities. They are rivals and more likely to harm one another than the other, such that

neither can understand how the other operates. Power seeks to destroy violence in order to

prevent it from having negative effects on the constitution, as illustrative examples of this point

have been shown in the above essay. Similar to this, violence also seeks to undermine or

overthrow authority in an effort to stop it from being abused or merely to seize control for

personal gain. In certain instances, those in positions of power use violence to protect themselves

from other people's aggression and to maintain their own authority. As a result, the connection

between violence and power is more complicated and toxic.

MLA Work Cited

Webley, Kayla. “Top 15 Toppled Dictators.” Time, Time Inc., 20 Oct. 2011,

https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2097426_2097427

_2097445,00.html.

“Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin Sentenced to More than 20 Years in

Prison for Depriving George Floyd and a Minor Victim of Their Constitutional

Rights.” The United States Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 7 July

2022, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-minneapolis-police-officer-derek-

chauvin-sentenced-more-20-years-prison-depriving.

Weber, Max. Politics as a vocation. Indiana polis/Cambridge, Hackett Publishing

Company, 2004.p.XXXIX.

Weber, Max. Politics as a vocation. Indiana polis/Cambridge, Hackett Publishing

Company, 2004.p.33.