Historically, politics have caused violence in different countries around the globe. Consequentially, different stakeholders have further given the idea regarding the existing relationship between the two (Locke 30). Ideally, violence is the use of physical force with the intention of causing harm, destruction of property, and at times leading to death. In the past, political instabilities in different countries have caused the destruction of properties and loss of lives. In this essay, there will be explanations regarding the role of politics in the propagation of violence. The ideas of the proponents such Karl Marx, John Locke will be used to bring forth the role of politic for violence.
Different philosophers have had something to say regarding violence and factors that surround the concept. Analytically, the three proponents of the political role of the violence have one thing in common regarding the matter. John Locke and his political thought explored much on the role of the human in the propagation violence by a human in the environment. According to Locke as the political leaders, pursue their dreams they disturb the peace in the society. In his political life, Locke explored different aspects of politics and the political leaders that tend to disturb the peaceful coexistence of the society. His idea regarding the relationship between the politics and tensions emanated from his personal experience during the era of his life. The tensions and the violence that dominated his atmosphere prompted him to attribute politics to violence and physical injuries (Locke 28).Additionally, Locke’s view on the politics is negative considering the negative effects of violence during his time. In his political philosophy, Locke brought clear the role of politics in creating the animosity among the people and disintegrating the unity in the society.
Karl Marx, on the other hand, contributed substantially to the study of humanity and their struggles to make an end. According to Karl Marx, struggles of human to make ends meet through the manipulations of their environment result in competitions and the subsequent violence. His opinion regarding the peaceful coexistence in the human society is the duty of the inhabitants to embrace humanity (Engels and Karl Marx 89). However, at some instance, Karl Marx was sceptical to the peace in the society and thus showed some favour of violence in resolutions of the societal conflicts. Karl Marx favoured violence. He believed that to achieve a true change within the government; there was a need to apply violent revolution. For instance, Marx viewed violence as the only way for real change to happen in communism. He was convinced that only through bloodshed that change could be evoked. He was therefore against the availability of a peaceful revolution.
Apparently, Karl Marx views violence as a way of replacing the existing government by dictatorship. In his ideas, some of the conditions under which violence is efficient are shortening, simplifying, and fatal deaths (Engels and Karl Marx 34). Marxism as a principle of revolution is based on civil war as a final accomplishment towards change. Marx stated that the process of establishing an unquestionable power entailed burning and killing people who disobey rules.
Notably, though the violence may not be closely linked to the politics, the actions of the political leaders show a close relationship. Often, different developing countries experience political instability that is stirred by the political leaders. Consequently, it is impossible to have a political leadership that upholds peace. The reason for the illegitimate suggestion of violence is that it irritates those individuals against it. However, the main aim of a policy when it comes to inducing change should be to involve civilians in the change process. Violence destroys peace and any possible efforts to solve a problem. On peaceful demonstrations, there is usually some hidden conflict with authorities.
Often, the political difference among between the political leaders causes division of the citizens along the political affiliations. As a result, the goo relationship among the citizens is lost thus high tendency of violence. Many countries have been in violence due to the difference among the political leaders. In such case, properties are destroyed, and lives are lost during the violence. Looking at such, case in the news and the different types of the social media reveal that there has been a close relationship between violence and politics.
. Consequently, violence is negative to the peace of the society because it affects individuals and their activities. It disturbs the economic activities and peace in the society. An evident case scenario is a policy that required Dutch soldiers who were involved in foreign operations to face prosecution by the government of Iraq. This policy showed the great size of the nation’s capability to resort to violence. The third reason for the illegitimacy of the political importance of violence is the harm impacted on participants in violence. Participants in violent actions suffer the most while individuals who resort the nonviolent paths fail to achieve the transformation they require.
Ideally, there is a need to avoid the activities that contribute to the violence in the society. Violence usually destroys the lives of the less fortunate in the society. Collaboration in communities should work in place of violence. A good example is China. The modern Chinese society experienced many positive things at the local level because of the cooperation based on mass participation. The nation reached some level of understanding that led to further developmental steps. Considering the ancient violent techniques used to bring about change, the occurrence of a revolution relied upon other forms of dialogue and understanding. Consequently, anticipated changes came because of non-violent actions (Locke 25).The revolution in China after defeating Nationalists is attributed to non-violence means of solving governmental issues. Another example is the Anarchist revolution for the Spanish where longer periods of preparation extending over a generation influenced the success of the revolution. Exercises entailed in preparation were very quick and of successful revolutionary action. Besides, a study of the National Liberation Front attributed its success to non-violent actions.
Notably, there is a need to put measures to prevent the action of the political leaders from causing violence. Nations should come together to resist the division brought about by the propagators of violence. Ideally, the duty of citizens to work for peace and resist to be misled by the political leaders seeks to bring disunity in the society. Measures taken to control crowds are violent in regulating the behaviour of peaceful demonstrators. This technology is efficient in the provision of the legitimacy in methods of solving issues. Other alternatives and democratic procedures can help in evading the injustices perpetrated by violence. Draft resistance is a ready example of a democratic procedure towards making more prompt and peaceful decisions (Locke 24). During the Vietnam War, a draft resistance was helpful in the imposition of a barrier to troop sending. Based on a set of examples examined under this section, revolution can be met without recourse to violence.
In conclusion, we should not allow violence injustices propagated by other people in our societies. The reason behind this is that the consequences of actions driven by violence affect us in one way or another. Furthermore, the development of society is based on the actions that are taken to form it. A society built on tolerance over injustices tends to be governed by similar principles, ideas, and actions. Societies formed based on peaceful, just and democratic methods will operate under the same ideas. We should not be responsible for the evil that we fail to prevent through our refusal to use violence to stop the violence. Regarding the importance of life, non-violent means are relevant in protecting other people from harm. Resorting to violence as a move to protect others from harm makes violence acceptable as a future weapon of approaching a similar issue. Resorting to violence results to more casualties, hence, risking the lives of other innocent individuals.
Works Cited
Engels, Karl Marx Friedrich. The manifesto of the Communist Party. Karl Marx Friedrich Engels, 1948.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government. 1690.
