Politics and Violence
Author(s): Gopal Singh
Source: Social Scientist , Jun., 1976, Vol. 4, No. 11 (Jun., 1976), pp. 58-66
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516199
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NO TE
Politics and Violence
THROUGHOUT THE history of organized political life violence has
played an enormous role in every society created by man. A survey of
Europe spanning twenty-four centuries shows an average of four years of
peace interspersed with an year of violent disturbance. 2 Twentieth century
is not different. The two most atrocious wars were fought before the mid-
century point was reached.Since the end of the Second World War,violent
attempts to overthrow governments have been more common than
national elections. Between 1961 and 1968 some form of violent civil strife
reportedly occurred in 114 out of 121 countries'. The present century has
witnessed numerous socio-economic and political convulsions, notably
in Russia (1917), China (1949), Cuba (1960), Algeria (1962), Indonesia
(1965), Nigeria (1967), Bangladesh (1971 and 1975), Vietnam, Laos
and Cambodia (1975). Military takeover has become almost an everyday
affair in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The century has become, as
Lenin predicted, a period of wars and revolutions, in truth, a century of
violence.4 The importance of the issue of violence in politics can be jud-
ged from the three major commissions in the U S A within the past few
years-National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, and the Presi-
dent's Commission on Campus Unrest-expressing the deepest concern
over the way things are going in that country.
At first glance it is rather surprising that violence has been singled
out so seldom for special consideration. In the latest edition of the
Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, violence does not even figure as an entry.
There is, of course, plenty of literature on war and warfare dealing mainly
with the implements of violence, but not violence as such. No social
scientist, and political scientist in particular, can afford to neglect its role
and manifestation in political life. Nevertheless very few have tried to
consider violence in politics systematically and empirically. What Sorel
remarked seventy years ago, "the problem of violence remains very
obscure",6 remains as true today as it was then.
To analyze political violence, it is essential first of all to identify
what is 'political' in it. The concept 'political' as a variable has been
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTE 59
defined in various ways and been related to varieties of variables like
state, government, power, group struggle, class struggle, communication
and so forth. Despite the controversy about the exact identification
of 'political', all philosophers and theorists implicitly or explicitly appear
to acknowledge the existence of power as an essential attribute of political
activity. To mention a few, politics has been defined as "struggle for
power" (Machiavelli, C Wright Mills, Morgenthau), "study of changes
in the shape and composition of the value patterns of society" (Lasswell),
"desire to execute one's desires" (Catlin), and "authoritative allocation
of values for society" (Easton). The role of power in social science is
considered so crucial that it is argued:
Every social act is an exercise of power, every social relationship is a
power equation and every social group or system is an organization
of power. Accordingly it is possible to transpose any system of social
relationships into terms of potential or active power. Perhaps such a
transposition is nothing more than the substitution of one termino-
logy for another.
Concept of Power
Indeed power is, as Talcott Parsons argues, a key concept in the
western tradition of thought on political phenomena.7 It is at the same
time a concept on which, in spite of its long history, there is on analytical
levels a notable lack of agreement regarding specific definition and the
conceptual context where it should be placed. Therefore it is found that
despite the existence of universal agreement on the involvement of power
in political activities, there exists no consensus as to the exact identifica-
tion of power. It is very difficult to resolve this controversy and give an
exact definition, nor is it the purpose here to provide one. This note
merely tries to identify the concept of power in the relevant manifesta-
tions and dimensions.
By and large, most of the social scientists have stressed that pow
is the capacity to control activities, and resistance to it by others, w
the threat of physical coercion. In its most general scnse,po wer in hu
affairs involves the control of human behaviour for particular ends throug
open or implied threat of punishment to those who refuse or fail to
comply.9 Whereas power in general is the ability to make and enforce
decisions, political power is the ability to make and enforce decisions on
matters of major social importance. Here it would also require an exa-
mination of the kinds of opposition against which the decision is to be
enforced. There is considerable difference between the ability of a parlia-
mentary majority to enforce its decisions against the will of the minority
and the ability of a rebel military clique or a revolutionary leader to
enforce decisions against the parliament as a whole. Thus if ability to
control human behaviour by making and enforcing decisions is power,
the ability to withstand and resist attempts at control is a form of
counter-power. And this notion of counter-power is missing from most of
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
60 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
the analyses.
Power is sometimes confused with, and used as
such terms as, authority, force or violence. But these w
Arendt succinctly states, "refer to distinct, differen
would hardly exist unless they did." ? Authority is
legitimate power. It means power based on consent. I
unquestioning recognition by those who are asked to
recourse to either coercion or persuasion.' ' It is exer
those who voluntarily accept it. Robert A Dahl defines
A commands B and B feels A has perfect right to do
he has a complete obligation to accept. Power of this
said to be legitimate. But when B feels A has absolut
ask him to obey, which he has no obligation to ob
perhaps, he actually has an obligation to resist. Powe
is often said to be illegitimate. Legitimate power
authority. 1 2
It is, in other words, a psychological relationship bet
elites, involving acceptance by the former of a claim by
the name of the community.
Marxist Approach
Force implies a compulsion on someone to act ag
Force can be viewed as the reserve capability and me
physical power. Its possession and use by the state is an
of supporting the authority of the system to persuade
Force then amounts to a threat of violence or counter-violence. If
violence is actually used, it may constitute merely demonstrati
force. To state briefly, power is institutionalized and organized
meant to rule and govern, and force is the capacity and mean
exercising power. Power is an end in itself, force is a means to sust
power and violence is force in action.' 3
But the most crucial political issue is, and always has been,
question of who rules whom. Power, force, coercion and authority
but words to indicate the means by which man rules over man.
are said to be synonyms because they have the same function. T
fore, the distinctions hardly correspond to watertight compartmen
the world of reality. There is nothing more common than the com
tion of force, violence and power and nothing less frequent than to
them in their pure and therefore extreme forms.1" All these conce
are nothing but various types or manifestations or forms or mean
power which are used at different times and in different place
accordance with the prevailing objective situation, either in an isol
manner or simultaneously. It is in this context that Olsen argues t
social power in its various forms of force, dominance, control, auth
or influence may provide a unifying theme around which num
competing theories of social organization can be synthesized. 1
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTE 61
Most of the political philosophers particularly prior to Marx had
in one way or other linked their discussion of power to the state, govern-
ment and the related organizations and institutions (such as the army)
as the main foci of power in society. It is only Marx who broke sharply
with this traditian. He argued instead that power originates primarily
in economic production, that it permeates and influences all aspects of
society, that the main builders of social power are the dominant social
classes or groups and that government is essentially their servant. Marx
expanded the concept of power from a specifically political phenomenon
to a ubiquitous social process and offered a theory of societal develop-
ment based on the exercise of power. 8
The Marxist approach to power appears more appropriate, for it
provides due consideration of the intra-societal conflict which others
have neglected, particularly the "consensus model" 1 that dominates
modern political analysis in America. In fact intra-societal conflict, not
integration, is more important in social relationship and the attainment
of harmony and unity is at best an imperfectly achieved goal. Thus to
define political activity as "legitimate physical coercion" or "authorita-
tive allocation of values" leads to confusion. It is really difficult to
determine what action is legitimate merely because an activity of po
tical institutions or state does not necessarily amount to be a legitim
action. Moreover we cannot determine what value is real value since
the so called "values" may be those of few dominant social grou
the "costs" of the majority of the underprivileged masses.
Consensusfor Polyarchy
Power as we know it is conceived as directly related to the
stence of socio-economic inequalities in society. The stratification o
society clearly reveals unequal groups or strata: certain dominant g
possess more resources than others who have either no resource at
too inadequate resources to be effective. 8 Therefore the distinguis
phenomenon of political activity is the existence of unequal groups
interests and the subsequent struggle for realization of group inte
that lead to conflict between various competing groups. Every
uses power for the realization of its goal. Thus politics is "the art
fluencing, manipulating or controlling major groups so as to advan
the purposes of some against the opposition of others." '9 The c
empirical fact that our study reveals is that the interests of v
groups are fundarmental to "political activity" in which a dominant
or a coalition of dominant groups, through the use of power, contro
manipulates other groups. The existenc.e of conflict remains basic,
is, concealed through the use of power which in fact cannot be rec
ciled outright . It is therefore impossible to agree with the Am
political scientists, particularly those of the "consensus model"
hold that conflict in a society can be resolved and a consensus of various
existing interests developed into "polyarchy"20 in which all group
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
62 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
interests are recognized, served and accommodated. B
remains that conflict in a society is inherently basic and
ciled for all time to come. Rather it is temporarily accom
the use of ideology, populist slogans, traditions, socializa
All these become the fundamental instruments of powe
economic formulation. In other words, political power i
in the hands of dominant socio-economic groups.
Thus Lenin argues that
the state is a product and manifestation of the irrec
class antagonisms. The state arises when, and in so far as class
antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled. And conversely the
existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcil-
able... According to Marx the state is an organ of class rule, an
organ for the operation of one class by another, it is the creation of
"order" which legalizes and perpetuates this operation by moderating
the conflict between the classes.2'
Class Conflict and the State
What is important is the existence of various socio-economic
groups out of which the dominant, through the use of power, controls the
activities of others by penetrating into the various political institutions
and structures of society. This state of affairs leads to the exploitation
of the interests of various other groups and to the development of mass
frustration and alienation. As and when these underprivileged groups
become politically conscious of the state of affairs, mass violence erupts.
As for the identification of political violence, what do we mean
by violence in general and political violence in particular? Though there
is a great deal of controversy on this issue, there exists a consensus
among political theorists from left to right that violence is nothing mor
than the most flagrant manifestation of power. C wright Mills says: "All
politics is struggle for power; the ultimate kind of power is violence."2
Max Weber defines it as: "The rule of men over men based on the means
of legitimate, that is, allegedly legitimate violence."23
Political power which as Mao says "flows out of the barrel of
the gun", is the organization of legitimate and institutionalized violence
and force. Karl Marx's estimate of the state as an instrument of oppres-
sion in the hands of ruling class holds good today. Max Weber wrote
that violence is a "means specific" to the state and that "the right o
physical violence is assigned to all other associations or individuals only
to the extent permitted by the state; it is supposed to be the exclusive
source of the right to use violence." ' Its distinctive characteristic i
monopoly of physical coercion. Thomas Hobbes, dismayed by the brutis
anarchy of man living outside the restraint of Commonwealths, conceive
the sovereign's control of coercion to be the foundation of the state an
the social condition. 2 5 Authoritative violence in the service of the state
is a crucial concept in political theory and an issue of continuing dispute
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTE 63
and debate. The state is meant to exercise political power, and power is
maintained only through force and violence. The state as a political
structure upholds a claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of
physical force in the enforcement of its orders.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines violence as "the exercise of
physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or
property."26 For our purpose, violence is to be defined in the socio-
economic and political context. According to Sidney Hook, "in the
social context, violence may be defined as illegal employment of methods
of physical coercion for personal or group ends."27 Critchley gives a
similar explanation and supports it by quoting the Oxford English Diction-
ary: "the concept of public violence is related to the use of great physical
force and the unlawful exercise of physical force."28 Violence is thus
referred to illegitimate and unauthorized use of physical force. Walter
defines violence as "destructive harm, hence a destructive kind of
force."29 Wolfgang maintains that "it is probably safe to assert, however,
that violence is generally perceived as the display of behaviour
which inflicts physical injury."8 0 According to Ted Robert Gurr politi-
cal violence refers to all collective attacks within a political community
against the political regime, its actors including competing political
groups as well as incumbents or its policies.8 Violence includes threats
or physical damage to persons and property; political violence is violence
resorted to by or on behalf of groups for political or economic power.8
Establishment Violence v. Mass Violence
These views regarding the meaning of political violence are one-
sided and inadequate. The use of the word "illegal" or "unlawful"
signifies that political violence is something which cannot be employed
by the state as it has the monopoly of legality. But violence is violence
whether it is employed by the state or the masses. At the level of defining
political violence no such distinction can be made and violence employed
by the state for whatever purpose, is political violence. Thus political
violence may mean use of violent methods for achieving legal or illegal
ends in politics, and may be defined as the use of force or the threat of
its use by a group or groups in order to achieve political objectives like
maintaining, influencing or seizing state power. The following definition
by H L Nieburg appears to cover much of what is considered political
violence: "acts of disruption, destruction, injury, purpose, choice of
targets, and/or effects which have political significance, that is, tend to
modify the behaviour of others in a bargaining situation that has conse-
quences for the social system.""8
Thus the principal concern is with political violence involving
politically, economically and socially disadvantaged outgroups in episodes
generally related to such groups' struggle for power: also with violence
as an instrument of power. The content of violent acts in politics can be
epitomized under the following broad categories:
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
64 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
1 Violence employed by the masses against the sta
agents. Ted Robert Gurr classifies it into the following:
(a) Turmoil: relatively spontaneous,unorganized politica
with substantial popular participation including violent pol
riots, political clashes, demonstrations, localized rebell
gherao or dharna).
(b) Conspiracy: highly organized political violence w
participation, like organized political assassination, small-sc
small-scale guerrilla warfare, coup d'etat, and mutinies.
(c) Internal war: highly organized political violence
spread popular participation, designed to overthrow the reg
solve the state and accompanied by extensive violence, inclu
scale terrorism and guerrilla wars and revolutions.84
2 Violence used by the state or its agents against
State here means government, and the agencies or institutio
ment mean police, military or bureaucracy. Fred R von
describes state violence as establishment violence; "It is clear that all
state systems consider violence a normal element in the maintenance of
domestic tranquility and the threat of violence a deterrent to deviant
behaviour." 85
He gives two broad categories of establishment violence:
(a) Governmental acts to curb "ordinary crime" when such acts
are perceived as political. Violence used in halting "ordinary crime"
when a political demonstration is not taking place is not considered
political in nature. However, when it is claimed that police power
has been employed unequally against citizens of the state or that the
law has not defined all crimes equally, the use of violence to suppress
crime quickly takes on a political dimension. Thus minorities (Blacks in
the USA) have asserted that greater violence has been used against them
in criminal cases than against the majority race. This is an effort by
the establishment to keep them in a deprived status. Public brutality has
become a key political battle cry among both Black and White opponents
of the American system.
When individuals are arrested, injured, or killed while committing
an "accepted crime" (like murder, trial, arson, property damage, or kid-
napping) in the process of carrying out a political act or demonstration,
the state is employing political violence. Secondly, certain acts defined as
criminal, are politically motivated. Laws designed to muzzle public
criticism of a regime fall into this category, as do laws dealing with
conspiracies of all sorts, not just those designed to overthrow the political
system.
(b) Obvious use of political-oriented force by the establishment:
Mehden classifies the more obvious forms of establishment political
violence under four heads: i) attacks upon power contenders; ii) efforts
to instil unity, or maintain order; iii) quelling opposition to the regime
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTE 65
where such individuals or groups are not of immediate danger to those in
power and do not employ violent tactics; iv) elimination of persons or
groups considered undesirable.86
To sum up, establishment violence is an activity that flows from
the dominant socio-economic groups of the society through various
instrumentalities like state,government, ruling elite, and political parties.
Violence which is usually identified as mass violence represents counter-
violence. From this follows that both these types of violence constitute
political violence. It is the by-product of interaction between dominant
socio-economic groups having a monopoly of control over the political
apparatus of the society and the subsequent exploitation of the under-
privileged and alienated masses. Thus it follows that politics, formal
power structures and violence are closely related to each other and
represent the fundamental instruments in the hands of dominant socio-
economic groups.
GOPAL SINGH
I Hannah Arendt, On Violence, Harcourt, Bruce and World Inc, New York 1960, p 8.
2 Pitirim Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics: Fluctuations of Social Relations, War and
Revolutions, American Book Co, New York 1937, vol II1, pp 409-75.
8 tHased on data for 114 polities in Ted Robert Gurr, "A Comparative Study of Civil
Strife", in Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr (eds.), Violence in America:
Historical and Comparative Perspectives, National Commission on the Causes and Preven-
tion of Violence, Washington D C 1969.
4 Quoted in Hannah Arendt, op cit , p 9.
6 George Sorel, Reflections on Violence, Peter Smith, New York 1941, p 60.
6 Amos H Hawley, "Community, Power and Urban Rer,ewal Success", American Journal
of Sociology, vol 68, January 1963, pp 422-31.
7 Talcott Parsons, "On the Concept of Political Power", in Roderic Bell, David V
Edwards and R Harrison Wagner (eds.), Political Power: A Reader in Theory and
Research, The Free Press, New York 1969, p 251.
8 Russell for example defines power as "capacity to produce intended efforts... A
has more power than B if A achieves many intended effects and B only few." (Power,
Norton, New York 1938, p 25). Robert A Dahl says: "Mv intuitive idea of power is
something like this- X has power over B to the extent he can get B to do something
B would not otherwise do." ("Concept of Power", Behavioural Science, vol 2, 1957, pp
201-15).
9 Peter H Odegard, Political Power and Social Change, Rutgers University Press, New
Jersey 1956, p 76.
e Hannah Arendt, op cit., p 43.
Ibid., p 45.
2 Robert A Dahl, Modern Political Analysis, Prentice-Hall, 1963, Englewood (liff, N .
) 33.
1 Gopal Singh, 'Politics and Violence", M Phil dissertation submitted to, and approved
by, the JNU, New Delhi 1972, pp 9-10.
14 Ibid.,p 10
16 Marivin Olsen (ed.), Power in Societies, Macmillan Co., London 1970), pp 8-Q.
? 'I his view of Marx about power is based on several sources including T B Bottomore
and M Rubel, KarlMarx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, C A Watts
& Co Ltd., London 1956); Ralph Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial
Society, Standford University Press, Stanford, Calif 1659; C Wright Mills, The
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
66 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
Marxists, Dell Publishing Co. New York 1962; Joseph Schu
Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York 1962;
Marxism: A Re-interpretation, D Van Nostrand Co Inc, Princeto
17 Consensus model which puts its emphasis on stability has b
modern American political scientists particularly Robert A
have written on systems approach, structural-functional analys
8 Similar view has been put forward by Gunnar Myrdal in Asian
the Poverty of Nations, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press & Pe
Challenge of World Poverty: World Anti-poverty Programme in Outli
* Quincy Wright, The Study of International Relations, New York
20 Polyarchy as a concept has been developed by Robert A Dah
Democratic Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1956
to empirical investigation in his classical book Who Governs? Ya
Haven 1961 and further developed in his Modern Political A
New Jersev 1963 and in various articles.
21 V 1 Lenin, The State and Revolution, Progress Publishers, Mos
22 C Wright Mills, The Power Elite, New York 1956, p 171.
28 Max Weber, "Politics as a Vocation" in Hans Gerth and C W
From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press
24 Max Weber, Politik als Beruf; Gesammelte Politsche Schrift
Tubingen 1958 p 359.
26 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Oxford 1946.
2 Oxford English Dictionary, A Corrected Reissue, vol 12, Oxford University Press, 1951.
27 Sidney Hook, "Violence" in Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, vol 20, New York 1934, p
264.
28 (2ritchley, The Conquest of Violence, London 1970, p 4.
2 9 Eugene Victor Walter, Terror and Resistance, New York 1969, p 4.
0o M E Wolfgang, "A Preface to Violence", The Annals, vol 364, March 1966, p 2.
8 Ted Robert Gurr, Why Men Rebel, Princeton 1970, pp 3-4.
82 Richard E Robenstein, Rebel in Eden, Mass Political Violence in US, New York 1970,
p32.
H8 HE Nieburg, Political Violence, the Behavioural Process, New York 1969, p 13.
84 Ted Robert Gurr, op cit., p 1 .
85 Fred R Von der Mehden, Comparative Political Violence, New Jersey 1970, p 37. The
title of chapter III is "Establishment Violence" (pp 36-52) and is devoted to the
discussion of various types of violence used by the state for political purposes.
86 Ibid., p 39.
This content downloaded from
92.247.131.41 on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:03 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
