Introduction
State violence refers to acts of brutality that are meted out by government agencies against foreign or domestic targets that are considered enemies of the state. A classic example is the enactment of anti-gang policies and laws in Latin America whereby security organizations have killed many children under the guise of quelling gang activities (Jackson, 2018). Recently, there have been numerous debates on the justifications for state violence. For instance, proponents of the approach posit that there are moral justifications for the same. On the other hand, those opposed to state violence allude that it is somehow similar to terrorism. The paper gives an in-depth analysis of the justifications for state violence. Further, it compares these assumptions with the on arguments used to justify terrorism and lists the problems that such claims cause.
Justifications for State Violence
The first justification for state violence is where it is employed to attain self-determination. By and large, this right is regarded as inalienable. There is also the quest for independence when people are under foreign or racist dominations. The legitimacy of such struggles is typically employed to substantiate state and political violence (Baylis, Smith, and Owen, 2012). The justification, in this case, is implied. By expressly reaffirming the people’s right to pursue independence and self-determination, there is certain support for the state violence that ensues in the midst of these struggles.
The other justification for state violence is whereby there are rebellions against legitimate regimes aimed at destabilizing them. In some democracies, opposition leaders start revolutions and rebellions against the government of the day in a bid to dethrone them. Such actions are usually done oblivious of the fact that the regimes of the time were legitimately elected and thus should only be terminated via democratic processes rather than riots and revolts. For this reason, proponents of state violence conclude that in such case scenarios, the state is justified in deploying its security agencies such as the military to neutralize the threat of overthrow.
There is also the argument of self-defense. According to proponents of state violence, the need to protect government entities or those linked with the state in one way or another justifies the brutality. In essence, since self-defense is an accepted principle in criminal law, it should also be extended to the nation. According to the nature of the former, a person or entity could defend itself against imminent unlawful violence. However, the defensive actions should be proportionate to the level of danger posed by another individual or a group (Blakeley, 2009). Governments, in particular, practice self-defense as a preventive measure against anarchy and civil unrest. For instance, political brutality tends to mutate into the destruction of public property, and violence against agencies linked to the authorities among others. In the midst of such scenarios, people justify the employment of state violence to protect the country’s machinery and bring back stability.
However, self-defense justification has some limitations. For instance, while the act of killing a leader of a violent gang by the police accomplishes a political objective, the deed is only regarded as self-defense if the murder and the associated force meted on the deceased were reasonable and proportionate to the force applied by the leader of the violent gang (Blakeley, 2009). Therefore, self-defense should never be used as justification for state violence against innocent civilians
As previously mentioned, state violence could be motivated by various factors. For instance, the authorities could employ brutality as a strategic means of governance. The development plans of the state could conflict with the wants of a people occupying a specific area in the country (Wilkinson, 2006). In situations whereby the general good of these frameworks outweighs the interests of a specific group of persons, the nation justifies its use of violence to carry on with its development plans irrespective of whether the local communities are in agreement or not. For instance, when a valuable mineral has been discovered in a particular area in the country, the community would want to obtain a vastly disproportionate share of the proceeds of this material. The state, on the other hand, might want to share the resources equitably around the entire territory. If the local community fails to reach an agreement with the state on the sharing of the said supply, the government justifies its use of violence to go ahead and exchange the means at its will. Other than the distribution of resources, the state could employ brutality when the said society utilizes violence to stall projects that are being advocated and steered by the authorities. For instance, some countries in Europe have taken the initiative of taking in refugees from war-torn countries such as Syria (Duyos-Álvarez et al., 2016). Such decisions are not always entirely accepted domestically, especially by far-right groups. The latter sometimes resort to violence to discourage and chase away the incomers. In such case scenarios, the government could use brutality to combat the opposition demonstrated by the far-right groups against innocent refugees.
The other principle that could be used to justify state violence is ideology. By and large, different countries lean toward various ideological beliefs. For instance, most western states are capitalistic. However, there could be small groups or uprisings within a nation that advocate for an agenda that is the polar opposite of that assumed by the state. To ensure that the entire country runs on a uniform ideology, the state could employ certain violence with the purpose of coercing people into adhering to a particular view (Baylis et al., 2012). A textbook case of force application emanating from ideological differences between the government and people is whereby the former advocates for absolutism, while the latter opts for democracy. The state could utilize its machinery to neutralize any types of uprisings that emanate with a view of changing its political ideology.
State Violence vs. Terrorism Justification: A Comparative Analysis
The reasons mentioned above are employed to justify state violence. Further analysis proves that many of these arguments are more or less similar to claims made by terrorists and their sympathizers. For instance, the need for state violence to support a political ideology is similar to employing terrorism to support religious convictions. The nation could justify the application of brutal force on a people as a means of reinforcing its political ideology. Similarly, radical religious ideologies are also cited as reasons why some terrorist groups commit violent criminal activities against the public.
Additionally, supporting counterinsurgency campaigns has also been employed to justify state violence. According to those with this viewpoint, the fact that it is the insurgent groups that were the first to threaten the legitimacy of the state through violent means, are justified in employing similar tactics to cement their authority (Poynting and Whyte, 2012). The same sentiment is shared by various terrorist groups who view their work as countering forces that seem to fight their religion. For instance, radical Islam is usually premised on the myth that western civilization is a threat to the faith’s existence.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The other comparison between justifications for state violence and terrorism is on the right to self-determination. As previously mentioned, proponents of state violence cite self-determination among the necessities for the state to employ violence against insurgents and their sympathizers. For instance, when a country is under the control of imperial power, the nation could use the available machinery to counter the might and power of the imperial power with a view of achieving independence and self-determination.
Similarly, terrorists and their supporters also cite the right to self-determination as one of the justifications for their acts. A textbook case is whereby Palestinian terrorism is frequently defended as a moral right for the former to free themselves from the domination of the Israeli government (Fraser, 2015). In essence, they hold the view that the right to self-determination is not meaningful without a plan of action to accomplish it. For this reason, they employ terrorism as a means to an end of achieving autonomy and independence from Israeli domination (Lawrence, 2005). The terrorists state that their acts are justified if they have a probability of accomplishing objectives irrespective of the costs that will be incurred therein (Sterba, 2003). A good analogy would be the use of atomic bombing by the United States against Japan in World War II which is explained as state violence by a country against citizens of another nation. In this case, the United States felt as if the attack on Pearl Harbour threatened its self-determination and independence.
Problems of Justifications for Terrorism and State Violence
The argument of the right of self-determination and independence to justify terrorism and state violence is problematic because of the following reasons. First, in most instances of the aforementioned approaches’ applications, the actors do not face the imminent danger that warrants the necessity to employ brutality that affects innocent civilians. For instance, in the fight against gang violence, there are better ways of making sure that perpetrators or leaders of such gangs are apprehended without necessarily using innocent civilians as collateral damage. On the other hand, the argument by terrorists and their sympathizers on the need for self-determination as a justification for their deeds also lacks merit. In most cases, people do not face the severe and imminent danger that could necessitate the use of violence whose effects spill over to innocent civilians (Beverley, 2006). In the case of Palestinians, for instance, it is clear that they face oppressive occupation by the Israeli, economic deprivations, and some human rights violations (Fraser, 2015). However, they do not face such acts as genocide or threat to their existence which are some of the issues anticipated by the law of necessity of International Human Rights.
The other problem that state violence under the guise of seeking self-determination raises is that it breaches other people’s fundamental human rights. Similar to terrorism, it results in the loss of lives of many innocent people. Therefore, it is counter-intuitive for the perpetrators of state violence to claim that they are fighting for their rights through means that result in the disregard of the rights of civilians that have nothing to do with their struggles. Further, it is proven that acts of brutality against innocent people are usually counter-productive. For instance, instead of alleviating the existing concern, they lead to more problems. The attack on innocent civilians when the state is on counter-insurgency campaigns puts more people against the state because they feel like the state agencies are biased against them. Similarly, terrorist attacks also create tension between different religious or philosophical adherents (Primoratz, 2004). The innocent population used as collateral damage will resent the ideologies or religious convictions that were used to justify such attacks.
The other problem of moral and political justifications of state violence is the assumption that they are representative of a whole group of people. For instance, terrorists influenced by radical religious convictions claim that they represent the entire faith (English, 2009). State violence actors also assume that their deeds are always defending the interest of the whole country. Despite such assumptions, nothing could be further from the truth. Both state and non-state actors of violence are not always representative of the whole group they purport to represent. A classic example is an assumption that national political ideologies are expressive of the will of the people. There are several ways in which countries can be run. However, the political ideologies of the government of the day are not always supported by everyone or the supermajority of the population.
Other than the similarities, there are also distinctions in the justifications for both state violence and terrorism. For example, one of the reasons the nation resorts to brutal force is to cement its authority in the height of uprisings. In essence, the purpose of the government is to reaffirm its control and power over the country and discourage any acts of insurgency that threaten this state of affairs. In contrast, terrorists and their sympathizers argue that their acts are the most effective for the weak that lack any other means to fight the state which has the monopoly of power compared to small rioting groups (Hoffman, 2006). For instance, religious persecution could make people resort to terrorism as a way of countering the state. Unlike state violence, terrorists’ objective is not to cement their authority. Instead, they aim to fight oppressive acts or policies that are advocated for by the nation. There are also arguments that terrorists try as much as possible to minimize violence. For instance, liberation forces could employ various tactics in order to prevent a conflict from mutating into an armed conflict. Usually, violence is often resorted to if these strategies fail to bear fruit.
However, both arguments on state violence and terrorism justification are problematic for a variety of reasons. First, the notion that state violence should be seen as a means of cementing the government’s power is illogical. There are many methods that various agencies could use to cement their authority and reaffirm their power. For instance, negotiating with the insurgent groups and looking into their plight makes for a more peaceful ending than resorting to state violence. Second, the government has the power of investigating and identifying the main perpetrators of insurgencies. They can be apprehended and sued as a deterrent to discourage future uprisings without involving violent means.
On the other hand, the argument that perpetrators use violence as a last resort is also farfetched. First, there are many scenarios whereby terrorist groups choose brutal force when other means of solving their conflicts are not entirely exhausted. Most acts of terror are usually driven by resentment rather than the need to ensure that human rights are upheld. The fact that these attacks end up affecting more innocent civilians instead of the purported enemies of the terrorist group is another reason to disregard those justifications.
Conclusion
Overall, there are many political and moral justifications for state violence. For instance, the brutal force proponents usually posit that it is a necessary tool that the government employs to fight the insurgency. The other common justification is that it is used by the nation for strategic purposes to enforce the development plans such as equitably sharing natural resources. The other argument for violence employed by states is when they seek to gain independence from foreign dominations or fight racist regimes that threaten their self-determination. Many of these substantiations of brutality application are similar to those utilized by terrorists and their sympathizers. For instance, the use of violence as a means of achieving self-determination and independence is commonly employed in both quarters. Through a comparative analysis of claims made by both of the groups, the problems many of the reasons harbor become apparent. For instance, most of the justifications disregard the rights of innocent civilians usually affected by acts of violence. The state and non-state actors of violent struggles usually have not exhausted other conflict management methods to warrant their resort to employing violence.
References
- Baylis, S., Smith, S. and Owen, P., 2012. The globalization of world politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Beverley, M.-E., 2006. Islam and violence in the modern era. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
- Blakeley, R., 2009. State terrorism and neoliberalism: the north in the south. London: Routledge.
- Duyos-Álvarez, S., Dill, K., McAtackney, L., Hoewer, M., Anastario, M., Moradi, F., Pohlman, A., Walsh, S.D., Jäppinen, M. and Johnson, J.E., 2016. Gender violence in peace and war: states of complicity. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
- English, R., 2009. Terrorism: how to respond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Fraser, T. G., 2015. The Arab-Israeli conflict, 4th edition. London: Red Globe Press.
- Hoffman, B., 2006. Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Jackson, R., 2018. Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics, and counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Lawrence, B., 2005. Messages to the world: the statements of Osama Bin Laden. London: Verso.
- Poynting, S. and Whyte, D., Eds., 2012. Counter-terrorism and state political violence. London: Routledge.
- Primoratz, I., 2004. Terrorism: the philosophical issues. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
- Sterba, J.P., Ed., 2003. Terrorism and international justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Wilkinson, P., 2006. Terrorism versus democracy: the liberal state response. London: Routledge.
Stuck on your essay?
