Forms of Political Violence

Forms of policy-making ViolenceNihad SafarliPolitical violence mutations and terrorismPolitical violence has become a position of a daily keep of each person living on the Earth. Almost everyone- politicians, mass media, scientists, taxi drivers.and etc. is talking or so this. In this paper I willing analyze the reasons of its popularity by investigating its origins and the factors which actuate off semi semipolitical violence. Based on the theoretical framework created by the sockledge Ive amassed before, brinyly my paper is foc employ on 2 prevailing forms of political violence with what this term often is being associated rotations and terrorism. I will try to find out more precious description of varietys and clarify which historical events behind be conceptualized as a rotation, as well as try to ascertain the main cause of terrorism.Theda Skocpols expression France, Russia, mainland China A Structural Analysis of Social Revolution provided quite total definitio n of revolution , although in my feel her study is so tightly squeezed that doesnt fit to all cases in the taradiddle. I want to knock Skocpols conceptualization of friendly revolutions .After reviewing the definitions given by S.Huntington and Lenin she combined the matter of them and applied it for analysis of revolutions in breakicular states. According to the author, revolution is a very rapid and fundamental transformation of complaisant conditions and mob structures and tidy sum be achieved through uprising of the lower class. The main difference of social revolutions from other forms of conflicts and transforming processes is that they attended by class insurrection, political and social transformations in social structure. But even rebellions with the aforementioned(prenominal) characteristics whoremongernot be considered as revolutions as they dont aim to adjudge structural changes.Skocpol utilize a comparative historical method, in order to analyze cautiously the history of round modern revolutions, use the data gathered from the cases to make generalizations. demarcation of this method is that it is good to compargon only if comparable cases. For example, comparison of Russian and German revolutions could be appropriate as a lot of everyday factors had an impact on revolutions, such as forfeit of contend. But for France war ended up with a victory and overall situation was distinguishable from Russia which makes troublesome to comp be French and Russian revolutions applying comparative method. Scokpol thought that irritate Russia felt during World War I caused the revolution as its rescue couldnt respond to such huge pressure yielded by force expenditure. But the main thing is not how a boxer was punched, the main thing is how he will he be able to project this Not only rapid industrialization provided withal leave out of capacity to respond to this rapid process, played an essential role.The challenging part of this def inition is nearly the phrase- very rapid. The blurred part about social revolution word is due to vague starting compass point and the end. For instance, the Russian revolution did it begin exactly in 1917? Or whitethorn be seeds of revolutions were spread before? For defining the paradigm of rapid change, we should know whether that revolution ended exactly in October 1917 or not? of import missing point here is that we dont know during which goal should structural transformation happen to be called revolution. Probably I screwing conclude that periods called revolutions, transformation happened much more rapid now carried the soft character.If we accept social revolutionas a fundamental transformation of society, we should define what is fundamental about it. The author mentioned it dimly changes in the social structure, accompanied by class uprisings second, political and social transformation.Butwhich changes in the social structure does she stiff? It is known that social structure changes continually. A person is a whole of society. In that sense birth and death of a person is also a change in social structure. Consequently, were talking about strange types of transformations in society. Skocpol wrote that the changes in society atomic number 18 attend by class uprisings. The fact that two events in society took place at the same time doesnt mean that one is a result of other one. In contrast with her idea I domiciliate state that the social changes happened during social revolutions are definitely the outcomes of insurrection.The nature of a social revolution provide be best evaluated by the outcomes which are filled right away after an insurgency by downtrodden class below. For instance, the nature of the French revolution can be best estimated by process befall after the overthrow of the king. However, it is possible to discuss the upheavals of the downtrodden classes, but also about counter-revolutionary upheavals. Symbolically, we can call them rebellions. Best example is the rebellion of Franco, as result of which a civil war has begun in Spain. Consequently, I can claim that the upheavals of the downtrodden are the inherentsegment of a social revolution.Another point regarding social revolutions which wasnt smooth in the article is about achievement of ultimate goal. Should the notion revolution be used for the instances when the downtrodden are finally nullified, or are not able to hold on to the power? Was 1905 events a revolution if to allow into account that resistance of revolution was broken and it didnt manage to accomplish its goals? Skocpol considers political revolutions contrasting from social revolutions.As an outcome of the latter, the form of the judicature ( and the government itself) is changed but the social structure and the property relations remains intact. Actually, political revolutions even doesnt fit the term revolution from Skocpols perspective.As a conclusion of article we can def ine social revolutions asa) an outcome , but also an origin of a scientific revolution,b) entails qualitative and quantitative transformations which become inalterable,c ) the downtrodden class can try to make changes any times before succeeding,d) representatives of this class come to government,e) social revolution continues in the consequent transformations in society.Terrorism as another general form of political violence can be analysed and also define in different contexts such as religion, war, crime an etc. about aspects of terrorism are going to stay outside of the outlook you used to study this term. I focused on the M.Chrenshaws article and can say that I instruct the outlook she used in her article to describe the causes of terrorism. The main perceptible and important moment is that she didnt used populist reasoning , like direction level of terrorists or their physiological status, for justifying her arguments which I ideate makes her article a high-quality pape r. But I distillery want to challenge some points she made regarding the causes of terrorism. Chrenshaw took modernization and musical score as one of the origins of this form of political violence.Modernization as a judicial admission can be taken as a factor only in states with less developed and conservative societies with stereotypes and taboos where new technological innovations are being impose by globalization wave. Conservative people has some distrust to new lifestyle, policies and dont want to give up their traditional life. But I dont agree with the statement, in a sense that, Chernhaw missed intervening variable .It is not modernization itself causes terrorism, rather it is just content of human character to resist to transformations and queue up to new way of life. Thats why revolutions which are rapid changes in social structure preceded with terror either by state in order to impose changes on people or by sort out of people for stopping that change. Even reacti onary changes can lead to revolution. In other sense, revolution is a good condition for terrorism to rise. The article publish in Foreign Affairs journal states that After Tunisian uprising ,which usually depicted as revolution( but just a political revolution according to Skocpols definition) , al Qaeda got expectanter operational freedom of action, its followers likely will try to stir up and benefit from new uprisings in order to fight for their political goals. (Byman, 2011). The similar trends are noticed in all places where revolution happened.As a direct condition for terrorisms grievance is very important an I think that it is the factor which is a condition for other direct causes to emerge .Grievance can be conceptualized as a real or assumed hurt or other cause for discontent or protest. I appreciate Crenshaws argument about grievance and want to develop it more, that terrorists are driven by grievances about international political issues within occurrence regions and the world. They nourish a thorough will to sacrifice innocent civilians because they ardently dream to expose their feelings and the only way of realizing them is terrorism.Off course, there can be various reasons why people nurse grievance. Some people are religious, some are nationalistic ad etc. Most probably popular reasons described as causes of terrorism such as education and poverty level therefore is not sufficient to explain the motives of terrorism.There isnt any concrete formula of grievance as in different societies there are people who are ready to devote his life to some goals. If to exclude one origin of grievance, many other factors will serve as an origin to nurse grievance in a violent way.Thats why it is hardly possible to prevent the takings of grievance but is possible to prevent terrorism by battle against institutionalized terrorist groups. Because terror institution is a safe environment where grievance can be directed to violence path while that rad ical feeling can be used in favour of piece as well.But what about variables like poverty and lack of education which are the explanations often articulated by mass media and politicians? In truth more highly educated people are those who are awake(predicate) of their rights and freedoms and persistent enough to fight for their political intentions to be carried out. For instance, results from public opinion polls on support for attacks against Israeli targets conducted in the West brink and Gaza Strip indicate that support for violent attacks does not decrease among those with higher(prenominal) education and higher living standards. (Krueger, Alan B. Jitka Maleckova., 2003)High education level in the inelegant promises many favourable things for its people, but analysis of the facts suggests that it doesnt bring about complete consensus and welfare in a society.If we want to look at the terrorism from the window of education we should concentrate on its content, rather than simply educational level of the country.Terrorism and Revolution also other forms of political violence dont have clear border by which we can easily identify them. Because all this terms are socially contracted. For example, Babek for Azerbaijanis is a poor boy, but for Arabs he was just a rebel, for Italians Juli Sezar is a hero but for French people he is an enemy conquer, Attila for Turks is a great hero but for Europeans he is a wild , cruel roughshod king who occupied their territory, English troops in Baku in early 20th century were considered as enemies during Soviet times , but friends after independence . The same is true for terrorism. For someone somebody can be a terrorist, for another one he can be a fighter for freedom. This socially constructed character of political violence makes it difficult to define and its analysis depends on the context.BibliographyByman, D. (2011). Terrorism After the Revolutions.. Foreign Affairs.Krueger, Alan B. Jitka Maleckova. (2003). Education, pauperisation And Terrorism Is There A Causal Connection?. Journal of scotch Perspectives.