I have found the concept of the monopolization of violence
to be very intriguing throughout the last couple weeks. A question that remains
in my mind, and that has come up in class, can states truly hold a monopolization
on violence? Is violence a commodity to be held through competition? My answer:
definitely. But I don’t think states always hold the commodity in abundance
over organizations that have or might rise to challenge their authority.
The concept that professor Shirk brought up in class, by Charles
Tilly, poses an interesting theory. That state making itself has, at times,
developed from organized crime, suggesting that maybe it doesn’t matter who
holds the monopoly to power, it matters who is strategic enough to use it in a
way that will advance their interests. Violence in many criminal or militant
groups spreads as individuals attach themselves to an idea that turns into an
ambition. We’ve seen it from groups who start from contemporary triggers, such
as ISIS and we can also see it in groups that have maintained ideas and norms
throughout time such as the views of some tribes within some African states
that, to this day remain prominent in their culture. There are even those
states where politicians compete as members of a certain tribe. The latter is an example of violence that wasn't triggered by contemporary circumstances but instead the conflict has transformed across years. Where once
there was violence between tribes, some who used it to their
advantage remained on top and are today forming and leading political parties in
democratic societies.
Authority derived from violence, it would seem, is not so
much a matter of who holds the authority but how they use it to strategically place themselves in the world.
This is a very interesting point that you have made here. I had not previously thought about the argument of how authority is used, instead of who has the monopoly over power. Now that I have thought about it, I have to agree. A person or group that has monopolization of power means nothing if they do not properly use their power. A government could have absolute authority, however if not used correctly, it will not help them to remain in power. Therefore, when it comes to power and authority, it is about how it is used instead of who wields it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is an interesting point that you bring up, particularly as it pertains to the selective application on the use of violence by states. Often in this type of discussion the focus is on selective use of force against a particular group, but I think the selective abstainance of violence also warrants discussion. When states selectively refuse to assert their monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, that arguably sends an even stronger message to local warlords, criminal organizations, and militias, and at times this abstainance is purely politically motivated. When states actively refuse to use their monopoly on the use of violence, they give the greenlight for other actors, who may serve the states political interest, to take care of business they may deem unsavoury.
ReplyDelete