Political Violence

Hartogs & Arzt (1970) state an agreement among political scientists in distinguishing
political violence into Organized Violence, Spontaneous Violence and Pathological
Violence. Organized violence which is patterned and deliberate. These authors regard all
organized violence as instrumental in the pursuit of group interests and goals. Besides,
Spontaneous Violence was an unplanned explosion sat off by the unique chemistry of
internal and external conditions. Spontaneous violence also regarded as reactive,
compensatory, or gratuitous in displacement. Then, the third type identified is
Pathological Violence that committed by individuals on the basis of neuron or
psychopathology.
Grundy & Weinstein (1974) proposed that organized violence may be divided into
criminal and political types. Criminal violence is not directed at the defense, disruption or
restoration of a normative order, although it may unwittingly contribute to such outcomes.
Political violence is directed at the maintenance or change of a normative order.
Nieburg (1968) observed that political violence addresses itself to change the very system
of social norms which the police power is designed to protect.
Grundy and Weinstein add that political violence can also concern itself with maintaining
or protecting the normative order, the status quo, under attack. Furthermore, they observe
that the distinctions between criminal versus political and organized versus spontaneous
violence are not always clear, Criminal bands may become social bandits and finally
guerrilla movements. Similarly, a riot may be interpreted by officials as a political
conspiracy and by oppositionists as part of a spontaneous movement for change.

Persson (1980) points to the truth that violence has had a bad press. Even more so than it
is equally misunderstood and much maligned by aggression. The term 'violence' is almost
invariably used pejoratively. However, like aggression, violence may be viewed as an
essential survival mechanism".
Politics has been circumlocutory by Lasswell as Who gets what, when and how.
Politics is concerned with the seizure the consolidation or the redistribution of the power
to decide who gets what, when and how. If violence is resorted to in this permanent
struggle for power, it is labeled political violence. Thus political violence is the domain
par excellence of power politics. In the macro quantitative literature, political violence
generally includes all variants of domestic political violence that is violence within
polities but war generally being excluded as organized violence between polities.
Political violence also can be defined as hostile or aggressive acts motivated by a desire
to affect change in government. It used by people and governments around the world to
achieve political goals. Terrorism and holding dangerous riots in the streets to try to
overthrow the government is an example of political violence. Political violence thus
appears to be fairly well distinguished from criminal violence like homicide, assault and
battery, rape, mugging, armed robbery, gang violence and crime syndicate violence.
Political violence is a common used by people and government around the world to
achieve Political Goals. United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
states that organized violent activity for political goals. Political violence claims the right
to use force in the name of survival, self-defenses, order, justice and freedom.

Many groups and individuals believe that their political systems will never respond to
their political demands. As a result, they believe that violence is not only justified but
also necessary in order to achieve their political objectives. Many governments around
the world believe they need to use violence in order to achieve their political objectives in
order to intimidate their populace into acquiescence. At the same time government use
force to defend their country from outside invasion or other and to force other
government or conquer territory. Non-action on the part of the government can also be
characterized as a form of political violence.

Violent political conflict can be categorized in terms of the motivation

and aspirations of the combatants.

Political
In some cases the objectors have what may best described as political motivations. Some
will state that war is diplomacy and violent political conflict could be described as
politics by other means. The motivation may be to affect a political reform, or overthrow
a regime perceived as illegitimate or lacking public trust and support. Terrorism may be
used as to demonstrate the weakness and vulnerability of the regime, to reveal its
inability to provide security, to provoke government repression to help recruit followers,
and ultimately to force leaders from power. This motivation has been most common in
Latin America, and would be typical where there is an oppressed majority population that
is denied political influence.

Cultural
This motivation is most common in situations where an ethnic or religious group fears
extermination, or loss of their common identity, language or culture, In the case of
oppressed minorities, opposed by a strong, entrenched regime, terrorism may be seen as
the only available option. This is especially true where demands for politic. It may also
be combined with political motives, where the rulers discriminate against the ethnic
group in terms of jobs, economic opportunity or access to the political process. al reform
are ignored, where there are few, if any, external allies, and where the regime resorts to
collective punishment for what are seen as reasonable and justified demands.

Psychological
A surprising number of pro-government analysts favor this explanation, which asserts
that some terrorists are unbalanced, violent individuals suffering some form of psychosis.
Others may be egomaniacs driven to achieve recognition through violence, and who
attract a following of other dysfunctional individuals. This characterization may be
accurate in cases where terrorist appear to have no logical goal, or motivation, or a
purpose that makes little sense to normal people. This can include cases where the goal is
the psychological benefit achieved by vengeance such as Timothy McVeigh and the
Oklahoma City bombing. Psychologically motivated terrorism is simply a criminal act,
like serial killing, and doesnt qualify for analysis as political violence.