Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political violence
Violence and contemporary society
Term paper on Violence as Ways to Bring About Political Change
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political violence
Repression by the South African government during the apartheid era, has hurt the ability for civil society groups to form. Instead of channeling grievances through civil society organizations that act as a “safety valve” for discontent in a more peaceful way, most South Africans who want to get their voices heard end up using violence as a tool in order to bring political gain.1 The use of violence as a component of South Africa's political culture was originated during the 1980s anti-apartheid struggle, where the ANC and other underground anti-apartheid groups would use violent and militaristic actions, language, and ideas to get their voices heard as part of social mobilization. Even after the end of apartheid and the establishment of the democratic regime, the elements of formal democracy such as competitive electoral politics, lobbying of interests, and open public debate have not replaced the violent and militaristic actions, rhetoric, and ideas that were the political norm of the 1980s.2 Civil society organizations still remain weak and shallow even under the current post-apartheid democratic regime, due to heavy co-optation of many civil society groups into the ANC.3 The weakness of civil society in South Africa and the reluctance of many South Africans to organize such groups under an environment of heavy political dominance of the ANC makes it possible for violent action to happen in many South African protests.4
How is it used?
Political violence in South Africa is employed in many different ways. In some cases, many violent protests do not require the use of armed weapons like machetes. In one article by Independent Online on September 15, 2005, that is cited in the Reddy article, a protest by high school studen...
... middle of paper ...
...y and the authoritarian tendencies of the state from the apartheid era could return, especially in a possibility of extremist ANC factions using political violence to take power in such a scenario. The reduction of state capacity by the ANC due to the violent and factional infighting and the lack of a strong, viable political opposition could herald a long period of political instability and uncertainty for the South African people.
Bibliography
Fields, Karl, Patrick O' Neil, and Don Share. “Cases In Comparative Politics” (New York, London: W.W. Norton, 2013)
Pinnell, Sabrina. “Topic 7: South Africa” Lecture, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, March 18, 2014).
Reddy, Thievn. “ANC Decline, Social Mobilization and Political Society: Understanding South Africa's Evolving Political Culture,” Politikon 37 (December 2010): 185-206
Chenoweth seeks to explain why “nonviolent resistance often succeeds compared to violent resistance, and under what conditions nonviolence succeeds or fails”. In recent years, organized groups conducting civil disobedience have been successful using nonviolent tactics such as, “boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized noncooperation”, in order to challenge the current power they were facing.1 Some successful examples of regimes that have been removed from power in recent years are, “Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004-2005), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006)”.1 More recently in 2011 there were major uprising in both Egypt and Tunisia that were able to remove regimes that had been in power for decades, showing that nonviolence can work even if the regime has been in power for years.1
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
Firstly, the dominant societal issue that disrupted the political order of the National Party was racial segregation and the termination of apartheid. Secondly, while the National Party promoted the apartheid system, the African National Congress (though at the time the party was illegitimate) advocated for the termination of racial segregation (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Although there was not shift in party coalitions there was a major shift in voter support from the National Party to the African National Congress (ANC) with the ANC winning a popular vote of 62.65% (Encyclopaedia Britannica). This realigning election removed the National Party from power and in its place positioned the African National Congress. The ANC has been in power since 1994 with little competition from opposing parties. However, economic, social and cultural changes have slowly lead to an increase in votes for the opposing party, the Democratic Alliances (Aryn Baker). With that said there might be a possibility for another realigning election sometime in South Africa’s
...bances began to emerge, and the economy began to drop. Unrest cost many lives, until demands for change were heard and the political system was revised. In 1994, the South African people went to the polls for the first time and held a democratic election in which Nelson Mandela became president. The country of South Africa has made strides in healing their broken country.
“Transnational Activism and Global Transformations: The Anti-Apartheid and Abolitionist Experiences” a study conducted by Audie Klotz looks to transnational activism as a social movement to encourage the formation of new socioeconomic systems and overall global transformation. Klotz draws upon two major historical events where transnational activism was relatively successful: the abolitionist movement following the civil war and the contemporary civil unrest in South Africa brought on by the apartheid. Klotz turns to these social movements as critical transnational participants that provide socioeconomic and political changes globally by means of massive mobilization.
In 1990, South Africa became a totalitarian state. Apartheid is still in full effect. There is extensive racial violence in the streets. The country is economically suffering from sanctions from many other countries in protest of Apartheid.
The End of Apartheid - HistoryWiz South Africa. (n.d.). HistoryWiz: for students, teachers and lovers of history. Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.historywiz.org/end.htm
Nelson Mandela’s commitment to politics and the ANC grew stronger after the 1948 election victory of the Afrikaner dominated National Party, which formed a formal system of racial classification and segregation “apartheid” which restricted non whites basic rights and barred them from government.
Source A gives a view on the South African governments control over its people and racial discrimination. It is a biased view and makes the South African government seem cruel and racist. It states that the governments "politics are determined by the colour a persons skin". As this is a statement it gives the impression that it is a fact and by giving this impression it also communicates the idea that the South African government IS racist, rather than the South African government COULD be racist. This comes as no real surprise as the advert has been paid for by the ANC (African National Congress), who are a very anti - South African government organization.
...rry their pass books (“Black’s resistance to Apartheid”). “During 1980 there were 304 major incidents concerning struggle with apartheid including arrests, tear gas violence, stoning, and strikes (“Black’s resistance to Apartheid”). In 1986 violent conflict forced the government to assert a national state of emergency (Wright, 68). The Public Safety Act increased penalties such as fining, imprisonment, and whippings for protesting the law (“History of South Africa in the apartheid era”).
A system of legal separation amongst races dominated the Republic of South Africa, namely apartheid between 1948 until 1993. Apartheid led to the separation and discrimination between whites against people of colour. Not only was this racism commonly accepted between whites against blacks, but it was also legally enforced as white’s maintained priority in terms of housing, education, political power and jobs. I will be examining a particular event, The Soweto Uprising of 1976 which was an education related outcry by students. This event carries with it a great deal of importance as it was a very powerful thing to impact South Africa and help in the deconstruction of the Apartheid government.
Old South Africa is best described by Mark Uhlig, “The seeds of such violent conflict in South Africa were sown more than 300 years ago, with the first meetings of white settlers and indigenous black tribes in an unequal relationship that was destined one day to become unsustainable” (116).
...ellent policies, 5) the Constitution had come into existence through the working together of various groups that had composed South Africa, 6) South Africa's political and economic institutions are well established, 7) and that South Africa is by far the most developed country in Africa. However, there are still avenues that can impede further progress, more so economically then politically. Primarily the lack of foreign investment, especially when South Africa's gold and diamond reserves are emptied as other parts of economy are not as developed. Secondly, the economic gap between whites and blacks that was stretched during the time of apartheid needs to be tightened or else it could become dangerous to the stability of the political system. However, due to the leadership of Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s current government structure exists to solve these issues.
The role of violence in the liberation of peoples from systems of domination is necessarily entwined to the concept of freedom. Herbert Marcuse and Frantz Fanon argue that violence, in various forms, is the only reasonable rebuttal to the abhorrent system of subjugation, whether it is in shape of something as transparent as apartheid to thinly veiled laws that take away the rights of humans under the capitalist system. To even understand the relationship between freedom and violence it has to be established what it is even meant by the phrase “violence” while simultaneously attempting to understand what means are necessary to achieve this end. Furthermore, what does it mean to be “violent” and is it always acceptable to use violence as a device to achieve a certain objective, even if that goal is something as vital as human emancipation? Conversely, the argument against the use of violence, in all its forms, to achieve freedom needs to be explored. The contrary argument that will be explored is from various texts of Martin Luther King Jr. and while our fundamental argument is opposed to King’s his views must still be taken into account if, for nothing else, to add structure to the argument at hand. It must be remembered that while the role of violence and freedom are necessarily bonded to one another this does not mean that violence is the only means to achieve freedom but that violence is the “best” way to achieve the ultimate goal of freedom.
I was treated well in prison; security guards grew a certain respect for me. I decided not to waste my time, so I informed my cellmates about the apartheid, and their horrible laws. They listened attentively, and wanted to help, so together we organized hunger strikes and protests. After 27 years, on February 11, 1990 I was released from jail. I could’ve got out of jail in 1985, P.W. Botha offered me a release but only if I would stop the armed conflict. Without a doubt, I chose to stay in prison because I believed that the right thing to do was to put an end to apartheid. P.W. Botha was an evil man, he committed to state terrorism and to thwart black majority rule. He had a stroke in 1989 and Frederick Willem replaced Botha. Frederick on the other hand, was the complete opposite of Botha. He set me free from jail.”