If it isn't now, in the face of horror, that one can say, "force, terrorism, more force, more violence doesn't achieve anything," when is it going to be said?? One of the things that one tends to forget in periods of turbulence is how unsuccessful violence is, even for those who have power.
Nothing has been resolved by violence over the last sixty years, not the Arab-Israeli conflict nor any internal Arab conflict, or any of the regimes that has been self imposed for decades, not even the situation of the royal family in Saudi Arabia. All need to change, all need to think, to stand back and say,"What on earth has got us here?"
Thanks for listening and salamat.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
THE LEGITIMACY OF VIOLENCE AS A POLITICAL ACT.
In most of the world, political methods involving violence are the only methods which offer a possibility of bringing about social changes amounting to a social revolution which everyone agrees are necessary in the poorer world.
The democratic conventions which make possible certain kinds of non-violent transfers of power have only a very limited extension in these societies. In most third world countries, they either never existed,or had only a fake existence or have been abolished. In these countries, governments and or regimes are changed by "coups d'etat" , palace revolution, or much more often, by mass revolution. And not by other means.
There are some people , of course who say that one must oppose violence in general, and that there is always better ways than to resort to violence. I think we are hardly in a position which allows us to tell others that violence as a political method is illegitimate . Or even to tell them what kinds of violence are legitimate and what kinds are not. We can say that we reject or do not choose ourselves to use violence, but that is a different and personal matter.
We all know the saying "you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" it is much wiser than the acts of most Arab ruling regimes, that plainly say that they can break many eggs without ever making an omelet.
No doubt this violence seen nowadays in countries like Libya, Syria or Yemen and Bahrain can destroy the native power, but it cannot replace it. Nothing will be left after destruction but destruction.
It is a dangerous illusion to measure the power of a regime by it's capacity of violence.
Under what conditions can violent actions be said to be legitimate ?? legitimate, for example, as a form of self-defence or self-assertion by those who see themselves as victims of a system of oppressive violence managed by the self-imposed authorities. As a way of bringing about social change in those backward countries where the ruling elite is wholly intransigent and repulses all attempts to modernise or reform.
There is an opposition rather than a distinction when we speak of violence when used by states, as to force exerted by crowds and masses. I cannot see a legitimizing factor in the fact that violence is used by the state, any state for that matter.
The democratic conventions which make possible certain kinds of non-violent transfers of power have only a very limited extension in these societies. In most third world countries, they either never existed,or had only a fake existence or have been abolished. In these countries, governments and or regimes are changed by "coups d'etat" , palace revolution, or much more often, by mass revolution. And not by other means.
There are some people , of course who say that one must oppose violence in general, and that there is always better ways than to resort to violence. I think we are hardly in a position which allows us to tell others that violence as a political method is illegitimate . Or even to tell them what kinds of violence are legitimate and what kinds are not. We can say that we reject or do not choose ourselves to use violence, but that is a different and personal matter.
We all know the saying "you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" it is much wiser than the acts of most Arab ruling regimes, that plainly say that they can break many eggs without ever making an omelet.
No doubt this violence seen nowadays in countries like Libya, Syria or Yemen and Bahrain can destroy the native power, but it cannot replace it. Nothing will be left after destruction but destruction.
It is a dangerous illusion to measure the power of a regime by it's capacity of violence.
Under what conditions can violent actions be said to be legitimate ?? legitimate, for example, as a form of self-defence or self-assertion by those who see themselves as victims of a system of oppressive violence managed by the self-imposed authorities. As a way of bringing about social change in those backward countries where the ruling elite is wholly intransigent and repulses all attempts to modernise or reform.
There is an opposition rather than a distinction when we speak of violence when used by states, as to force exerted by crowds and masses. I cannot see a legitimizing factor in the fact that violence is used by the state, any state for that matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)