Political Violence and Its Relation to Individual Liberty and Government Authority

Name

Institutional Violence

Politics deal with seizure, association, alliance, or redistribution of power that leads to decision of who gets what, when and how and if violence is involved in politics, it is called political violence. Political violence is normally outside state control and is triggered politically although crime and warfare have common characteristics with political violence (Anonymous, 2011). Scholars categorize political violence in three aspects including institutional, ideational, and individual (Hazelwood, 1969). Institutional explanations for political violence concentrates on how the state, economy or social system lead to political violence while ideational aspects deals with the effect of political, religious ideas trigger political violence (Suozzo, 2011). There are also individual explanations that centers on what provokes individuals to engage in political violence and the stimulants may be either rational or psychological.

Leaders sell their ideologies to people persuasively. Once they are into premiership, reality sets in, and noting that, they cannot achieve their main promises. According to Armborst (2010), politicians commonly sought to unorthodox means of retaining power. A phenomenon termed as political violence. Political violence may range from the violation of basic human rights, excess use of force by the police, and war with neighboring countries (Besley et al., 2011). Besides there is, capital punishment on political rivals, censoring of the media reports, all this forms of political violence aims at curtailing individual liberty.

Indira Gandhi came into power as a compromise candidate. The members of the then Congress party were in disagreement as to who shall be the prime minister after the death of LalBahadurShastri. Initially, she had refused to take over as the Prime Minister from her father in 1964 but later accepted the offer. Members of the congress party thought that she will become susceptible to influence and give up power, given she was a woman, but the surprise of many; she ruled ruthlessly and she made sure that power was centralized (Hazlewood, 1969).

Prior to joining politics, she was a personal assistant to her father LalBahadurShastri .Who was the, Prime Minister between 1947 to 1964.This position shaped her political career, and left many astounded as to the kind of leadership she offered. Despite being a woman, she succeeded in a society where leadership was a preserve of men. Gandhi borrowed leaf, from her father as her administration was centralized, and took many into surprise as she got the government involved with the civil war in Pakistan (Besley et al., 2011). India had signed a treaty with the Soviet Union, to be supported in case of war while Pakistan had support from the United States. In the resulting war of 1971 India emerged victorious, resulting in the modern today state known as Bangladesh. Although war is a form of political violence, Gandhi inevitably used it to end civil strife in Pakistan. According to Nair &Sukumaran (2008), the outcome was strained relations with the United States and Pakistan. India maintained its strong trade relations with Bangladesh and the Soviet Union.

Indira Gandhi used her authority to curtail individual liberty; she used the army to suppress the rising of the Sikh, who wanted to be a sovereign state. During Gandhi‘s time as prime minister she believed in using military force to solve any rising conflict crisis. This retrained relationship between liberty and authority.

The relationship between, Bangladesh and India was short lived. This was after the assassination of LalBahadurShastri in 1975, which gave power to the Islamic military, which were of the view that India could erode its cultural diversity (Nair &Sukumaran, 2008). Hence, the new rule distanced itself from India, although they appreciated them for liberating their country from Pakistan. Gandhi inherited a weak economy, characterized by high rate of inflation, famine, and civil war in Pakistan. The government sought to liberate the economy and devalue its currency with promise of foreign aid from the World Bank, by then called the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. In 1966, the economy grew by 4.1%; this was attributed to limited aid as the argued that there was restriction in the economy. The situation was further restrained by Gandhi’s criticism of the USA bombing campaign of Vietnam, a form of Political violence.

The demands of the United States were unconvincing for Gandhi, who had different ideologies, and was strongly against political violence in Vietnam. The withholding of foreign aid in terms of wheat supply as form of enticing Gandhi to support the war did not auger well with the country. U.S acts led to suspicious approach of liberalizing the economy and currency devaluation. In reactive Gandhi opted to hold foreign currency reserves and buy grains directly instead of relying on foreign aid. Besides, Gandhi put up measures that directed production inputs to agriculture, which in the long-run increased food production in the country. This led to self-reliance and the overall reduction of poverty in the country. A phenomenon that is commonly known as the Green Revolution in India (Simon, 1995).

Even though, the annual economic growth fell sought of the targeted figures, Indira Gandhi made a land remark in transforming India to become self-reliant. Gandhi was a protectionist, she strongly believed in the government control of most resources, she argues that, if resources are left in the control of the private sector, this will lead to exploitation of citizens and increased poverty. The nationalization of most banks, during her tenure as prime minister, empowered most poor Indians. This led to increased investment in the informal sector, thus improving the welfare of most citizens. This also assisted her in being re-elected into office in 1971 (Armborst, 2010).

The ideology of nationalizing most sectors of the economy is meant to ensure that the government is in control of what is happening in the country and not dictated by the private sector and other countries. As it can be seen the action of Indira’s government of nationalizing the banking sector boosted the economy to a great extent and improved the live hood of most Indians.

The doctrine of justice and equality for both men and women was enshrined into the India constitution during her premiership. As India’s Prime Minister, Indira questioned the fundamentalism of India’s monarchy system, commonly termed as Privy Purse. She argued that all citizens have equal rights, although she faced opposition at first, in the long term she managed to abolish the monarchy systems. Indira Gandhi was against political violence of non-Hindi states in her country. This was shown when she did not declare Hindi as the national official language, as per the Indian constitution of 1950, but made changes to the constitution the allowed both Hindi and English as official languages.

Nevertheless, during her reign, Gandhi, used political violence to curb insurgency or weaken the opposition. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, she used the Indian army against the militant communist uprising. Besides, she ordered Indian army retaliatory attacks in response to the Mizo uprising against the government in the Eastern India state, to make matters worse air strikes, were carried out, making it an exception act of India killing its own civilians (Bandarage, 2009). Indira Gandhi watered down all her accomplishments in June 1975. She was accused of electoral malpractice and guilty of using government resources and officers in her campaigns. In response, she used her authority and power to ignore pleas to resign, but instead ordered the president to declare a state of emergency.

Aftermath of which was the arresting and torturing of most of the opposition leaders, increased police brutality and declaring of curfews in most states. Mrs. Gandhi ousted members disloyal from the cabinet and instead chose loyal to the party during the period of emergence. She used her political ruthlessness rule as opposed to the will of people (Bandarage, 2009). Besides, Indira Gandhi used her authority to order the Indian army who destroyed the Golden temple in the state of Punjab where many civilians died, an operational known as Operational Blue Star.

Vividly, it can be seen that during her tenure as prime minister she was reactive to civil disobedience from the north eastern states of India that were consider very strategic to the economy of the country that she sought to use political violence to curb the Mizo and the Militant communist uprising. This verily commensurate the Sikh uprising was seen as a civil disobedience, and in their quest for state autonomy, Indira Gandhi resorted to political violence to curb their insurgency (Bandarage, 2009). Multiculturalism in one way or other has contributed to political violence India; India has different religious groups with majority being Hindu, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and other religions respectively. The anti- Sikh riots of 1984 is a form of political violence.

Benazir Bhutto was the 11th prime minister of Pakistan, she took, power when the country was facing a racial crisis, with an economic recession (Khouri, 2007). Unlike Indira Gandhi who advocated for nationalization of major sector, Mrs. Bhutto had an inverted ideology of denationalization. Mrs. Bhutto, fought for a liberal society where human rights are protected, she advocated for equal rights between men and fought to repeal the, injustice system against women, in a strongly religious society that sidelined women (Khouri, 2007). She never achieved her quest for equal rights between men and women, in a male dominated society. This and suspicion of corruption and misuse of power, and that she were affiliated to the United States and European countries led her to being ousted.

In contrast to Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto advocated for the denationalization of most sectors of the economy.Comparing the two premierships it’s crystal clear that Gandhi transformed India more than Benazir did to Pakistan during her reign. Therefore the government is sometimes justified in limiting the freedom of its citizens.

Khouri (2007) explains that Mrs. Bhutto was also involved in some form of political violence during her premiership. Bhutto’s involvement in the Afghanistan civil war, where she supported a strong religious group, Taliban, was part of her lethal initiatives. She sent military support with a motive to undermine the Indians and the Soviet Union who supported it the East Pakistan, during the Pakistan civil war, resulting into the creation of the current Bangladesh. It is worth noting that women are sidelined in most Islamic countries, and those that were powerful as seen as inheriting power from their fathers like Benazir Bhutto and Indira Gandhi. Mrs. Bhutto was in power, still up to her assassination, she was unable to change their staunch, beliefs, and no Muslim woman has ever risen to her level, a clear example of political violence to women, by Islam staunch beliefs and failure to adapt to modern theology.

Rigid observance of outdated Muslim beliefs ,that leadership is a preserve for men, has caused diplomacy hitches between the united states , western countries, and most countries in the Asian continent, leading to civil wars whereby innocent civilians losing lives.

A good instance is the U.S war in Afghanistan during the reign of President George W Bush, in a military plan of eliminating the al Qaeda terrorist group that ended up killing many civilians. In response, there was retaliatory attack of the famous November 11 bombing in the United States of America. The outcome of this politically motivated violence is the, increasing animosity, tension among different religious groups, especially amongst Christians and Muslims in Kenya where media have reportedburnt churches and physical assault between Christian and Muslim youths (Sahle, 2012).

Political violence can result from ethnic differences and the fight for power, among the different groups in the given country, poor political systems, and election malpractices are the major course of political violence in developing countries. The post-election violence that erupted in Kenya in the 2007 elections, clearly showed the underlying ethnic differences, and the quest for power, among individuals, coupled with election malpractices, the situation bottled, that called the assistance of the international community to reconcile the country (Sahle, 2012).

The international community made recommendations for the restructure of government systems, and with the amalgamation of a new constitution in 2010, the country opened a new chapter in its political history. In the ensuing 2013 elections, there was no form of political violence and any arising conflicts were resolved by the independent judicial system. Governments have authorityof ensuring that the state is run properly, but it should exercise with moderation and respecting human rights.

It’s fascinating to note that, individuals, quest for power, normally leads to political violence, whereby many lives are lost (Schwarzmantel&Ebrary, 2011).

During campaigns, most leaders promise heaven on earth for their civilians, but once they are in power they suddenly become greedy and start violating the civilians who elected, and when, power is good others turn into dictators, Idd Amin of Uganda. Political violence can be in form of genocide, here political opponents kill innocent civilians, this may lead to eliminate in totally a given ethnic community, or reduce them in numbers for political supremacy, and an instance is what happened in Rwanda in 1994. Besides killing of Sikh in the Golden Temple during the premiership of India Gandhi was a form of genocide that sort to suppress the ethnic group and seek control of the region, which was considered strategic to the economy of India (Saikia, 2011).

The assassination of Indira Gandhi by her two body guards, was a manifestation of political violence, thought they were brought before the jury, the loss of such a woman leader, of a caliber was a big loss to the republic of India. Benazir Bhutto also was assassinated while on a political campaign in 2007 with two weeks to election and she was the major opposition candidates, and her killers remain a mystery up to date. Political violence in form of suicide bombings is common in most Arabic and Islamic countries in the modern word. While in developing countries especially in Africa, they plan cold blood killings.

Political violence is prevalent in Africa state, where by the opposition leaders are arrested and held in custody without trial, and when holding demonstrations excessive use of police, is administered to try to intimidate them from questioning the government in power (Saikia, 2011). The international community, need to come into terms with this, menace and put in place, measures to curb political violence in Africa and most Islamic and Arabic countries. The current demonstrations in Syria and the counter measures the current government using, killing innocent civilians in the process, is an indication of worse things in future.

Irrespective of pressure from the international community in limiting the government to stop political violence.sometimes use of enables the government to achieve its objectives.

References

Anonymous. (2011). Political violence: Main book. The Mercury, pp. 6.

Armborst, A. (2010). Modeling terrorism and political violence. International Relations, 24(4),

414-432. Doi: 10.1177/0047117810385779

Besley et al. (2011).The logic of political violence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(3), 1411-1445. doi:10.1093/qje/qjr025

Bandarage, Asoka (2009). The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political

Economy.Taylor & Francis.p. 111. ISBN 978-0415776783.

Hazlewood, L. A. (1969). Political violence and the political system.ProQuest, UMI

Dissertations Publishing).

Khouri, R. (2007).Political violence: Who killed Benazir Bhutto? We all did for so many political people–good guys and bad–killing has become part of the job. The Globe and Mail (1936 Current), pp. A21

Nair &Sukumaran. (2008). Indo-Bangladesh Relations.APH Publishing.p. 47. ISBN 9788131304082.

Schwarzmantel, J., &Ebrary, I. (2011).Democracy and political violence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Simon. (1995). Sederberg, Peter C. “fires within: Political violence and revolutionary changeIntro to Political Theory 2nd Edition by John Hoffman and Paul Graham: ISBN: 978-1-4058 9988-8

Suozzo, S. (2011).Political violence. The Record, pp. A.21.

Sahle, E. N. (2012). Fanon and Geographies of Political Violence in the Context of Democracy in Kenya. Black Scholar, 42(3/4), 45-57.

Saikia, P. (2011). Political Opportunities, Constraints, and Mobilizing Structures: An Integrated Approach to Different Levels of Ethno-Political Contention in Northeast India. India Review, 10(1), 1-39. doi:10.1080/14736489.2011.548237