Page 28 of 40
Violence in politics.
Politics has long been associated or even identified with violence. Its most important feature is the use of organized violence. Legal political violence on its territory is carried out only by the state, although it can be used by other subjects of politics: parties, terrorist organizations, groups and individuals.
Political violence is a deliberate action aimed at causing damage to a person, social group, deprivation of liberty, health, property, life. Violence can be physical, economic, psychological, etc. In relation to politics, speaking of violence, they usually mean physical violence (or non-violence) as a means of its implementation.
Political violence differs from other forms not only in physical coercion and the ability to quickly deprive a person of freedom, life or inflict irreparable bodily harm on him, but also in the organization, breadth, systematicity and efficiency of application. In relatively calm times, it is carried out by people specially trained for this, possessing weapons and other means of coercion, united by strict organizational discipline and centralized control, although during periods of uprisings and civil wars, the circle of subjects of violence is significantly expanded due to non-professionals.
Violence is an integral part of all human history. In political and public thought there are very different, including directly opposite, assessments of the role of violence in history. Some scholars, such as the German philosopher E. Dühring (1833-1921), attributed to him a decisive role in social development demolition of the old and the establishment of the new.
A position close to such an assessment of violence is taken by Marxism. He views violence as the "midwife of history", as an essential attribute of a class society. According to Marxism, the driving force of history is the class struggle, the highest manifestation of which is political violence. Social violence, according to Marx, will disappear only with the liquidation of classes. Attempts to put Marxist ideas into practice turned out to be an escalation of social violence for mankind, but did not lead to a non-violent world.
A negative assessment of the social role of any violence is given by pacifists and supporters of the concept of non-violence. The essence of the concept of non-violence in politics is the renunciation of the use of force in resolving conflicts and settling disputes based on the principles of humanism and morality. The philosophy of non-violence differs significantly from pacifism, passive contemplation of evil, non-resistance to violence. It involves active actions, not only verbal, verbal, but also practical, but there should be no physical impact(that is, the impact on the human body) or restrictions on the freedom of his spatial movement (imprisonment, etc.). Non-violent means of struggle include public performance, statements, letters of protest or support, slogans, deputations, pickets, ostracism of individuals, strikes, non-violent occupation of buildings, non-compliance with laws, etc.
The concept of the leading role of violence in history and the concept of non-violence are two extreme points of view regarding the methods of achieving political goals. In general, in the public mind, including among scientists and politicians, the attitude to violence prevails as an inevitable evil arising either from the natural imperfection of a person or from the imperfection of social relations.
The manifestation of violence and its scale are determined by many reasons: the economic and social structure, the severity of social conflicts and the traditions of their resolution, the political culture of the population and leaders.
The most important factor that directly affects the size, forms of manifestation and public assessment of social violence, both within individual countries and in relations between them, is the nature of political system: authoritarian, totalitarian or democratic. The first two types of states - authoritarian and totalitarian - endow power, top leadership with an unlimited right to state coercion, while democracy recognizes only the people and their representatives as a source of legitimate coercion.
Since ancient times, the most prominent humanist thinkers considered the inalienable right of the people to retaliatory violence - defensive, just wars and uprisings against tyrants. J. Locke and other liberal thinkers considered the appeal to force to be lawful and moral in the event that the monarch or the elected government does not justify the trust of the people, violates the natural rights inherent in a person from birth to life, freedom, property, etc., usurps power and enslave the citizens. In this case, the government itself puts itself in a state of war with the people and thereby legitimizes its natural right to revolt against tyranny.
In accordance with these ideas, the law of democratic states (law - from the Proto-Slavic law - law - a system of universally binding norms protected by the power of the state), their constitutions usually recognize the legal and moral right of the people to use force, to resist against those who are trying to forcibly eliminate the democratic order. However, in a constitutional state, this right is valid only when government bodies find themselves unable to resist the coup attempt by legal means.
Democracy creates the most important prerequisites for limiting violence, resolving conflicts by peaceful, non-violent means. This is achieved primarily as a result of the recognition of the equality of the rights of all citizens to govern the state, to express and protect their interests. In a democratic rule of law, violence itself must be legitimate, recognized by the people and limited by law. Thus, Article 20 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany states: “All state violence comes from the people. It is carried out with the consent of the people expressed at elections by special bodies of legislative and executive power and justice” and within the limits of the law.
Examples of manifestations of political violence are various forms of forceful solution of various political conflicts. Such manifestations include revolutions, coups d'état and riots, uprisings and riots, political terrorism, and in interstate relations - wars.
Political revolution (from French revolution, from Latin revolutio - coup) - a radical change in the political life of society based on the realization of the possibilities of a revolutionary situation. Revolution is a deep qualitative transformation of the socio-economic foundations of society, the political system or people's consciousness. Revolutionary processes are, as a rule, violent, leading to the overthrow, removal from power of the ruling elite and its replacement with a new one.
The main question of the revolution is the question of power, of how political forces she will belong. The American sociologist of Russian origin P.A. Sorokin in his work “Sociology of Revolution” defines revolution as a change of the constitutional public order committed by force. The English sociologist A. Giddens defines revolution as the overthrow of the existing political order through a mass movement using violence.
In political thought, two extreme approaches to the revolution and to its assessment as a social phenomenon have developed. Supporters of the Marxist theory consider revolution as a leap that interrupts the gradual development of society at the moment when the accumulation of progressive qualitative changes in it reaches a critical point, and the old socio-economic and political relations hinder the transition of society to a new, higher level of development. The revolution gives rise to new social and political forces, allowing society to move forward. Therefore, Marxists unequivocally positively assess the role of the revolution, calling it the "locomotive of history."
Their ideological opponents, representing the bourgeois-democratic platform, as a rule, approach the assessment of the political revolution in two ways. The overwhelming majority of them quite sincerely pay tribute to, for example, the Great French Revolution, which contributed to the rise of the French bourgeoisie to the heights of political power, granted it political rights and freedoms, and democratized the entire life of French society. At the same time, they believe that the implementation of the revolution is associated with enormous social costs and destruction, global violence in society, depreciating even the positive that it brings.
A revolution in politics can either change the type of power, the regime of government in society, without modifying its socio-economic and spiritual foundations (that is, it can be essentially a political revolution), or carry out qualitative transformations both in politics and in the entire social system.
The types of revolutions are distinguished depending on their driving forces (peasant, bourgeois, proletarian), methods of struggle (peaceful and accompanied by armed struggle), the type of social relations that are established (bourgeois-democratic, socialist) or the nature of the transformations (“continuous” or permanent revolution).
Coup d'etat - carried out by part of the ruling elite, civil servants, most often military groups, an illegal change of power in the state with the use of violence or under the threat of its use. Coups d'état are distinguished by the speed of change of power and usually begin with the occupation of strategically important objects - television and radio stations, government buildings, the location of command posts, etc. In the case of active resistance, a coup d'état can escalate into a civil war.
A rebellion is an armed uprising by certain political groups as a result of a conspiracy against the existing state power. The organizers of the rebellion are part of the officer corps or a group of like-minded people with experience in illegal work. A rebellion combined with mass riots can develop into a mass uprising or revolution, that is, the violent overthrow of the old government and the establishment of a new one.
One of the most common forms of political violence today is political terror - (from Latin terror - fear, horror) - suppression, persecution, intimidation for political reasons by violent measures, up to physical destruction, of political opponents. Political terrorism is a kind of political radicalism that involves the use of violence and murder as the main means of achieving goals.
In the 19th century terrorism was used as the main method of activity of certain organized groups and individuals who fought with its help against despotic regimes. The ethical justification of terrorist acts, undertaken by a number of theorists of anarchism and revolutionary democracy, surrounded political terrorism with a certain touch of romance. Even in the 20th century, for example, the terrorist struggle of the Algerian Arabs against the French, the Palestinians against Israel, or the activities of the first generation of the Italian "Red Brigades" that attacked capitalism, were regarded by many as liberation actions. The task of political terror is not only the achievement of some specific political goals, but also the creation in a particular country (or on an international scale) of an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and general instability.
The tactics of terrorist actions were also significantly enriched: hostage-taking, explosions and massacres began to be used in in public places. This forced many countries to form special bodies to combat terrorism.
Today it is customary to distinguish between domestic terrorism, limited to the framework of one country, and international, including the conduct of international actions by criminal groups and the support of a particular country for the activities of international terrorists (for example, the Gaddafi regime in Libya).
In the event that the state is the organizer of terror, they speak of state terrorism, which can be directed both against other countries (Hitler's National Socialism, US aggression in Vietnam) and against their own people (for example, Stalinism in the USSR, Pol Pot's regime in Kampuchea, the "cultural revolution" carried out by Mao Zedong in China, etc.).
Introduction
The role of violence in the political process
Conclusion
Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
Occupying an important place in the political history of mankind, violence from ancient times to the present is considered by the subjects of politics as one of the main means of achieving their goals. At the same time, the use of violence has serious destructive consequences: death of people, destruction of material values, dehumanization of social relations. Just after the Second World War, numerous political conflicts claimed the lives of tens of millions of people.
The life of a person and society is regulated by many laws and rules. These regulations significantly affect the activity of political subjects. The extreme and most rigid such determination appears in the form of violence. Violence, as a way of coercion, is inherent in any society to one degree or another. All over the earth there are police and courts, the state uses violence in relation to a part of the citizens of its country or in relation to other countries and their inhabitants.
Violence has always been used in politics, and it is unlikely that it will ever be completely abandoned. True, in the twentieth century, the acceptability of violence as a universal way of regulating social life is increasingly being questioned, and the areas of use of violence are increasingly narrowing.
There are several reasons for this dynamic attitude towards violence. First, there is a clear trend towards a narrowing of the zone of imperative regulation of human behavior. Most states and societies are becoming more tolerant of those actions of citizens that do not directly affect the interests of other people. As a result of this general liberalization, the number of cases in which the state seeks to achieve certain restrictions from citizens is reduced, and accordingly, the need for violence as a means of coercion is also reduced.
Second, everything more it becomes clear to people that the wave of violence, whether it be war or repression against internal enemies, is extremely difficult to stop. Violence, planned as temporary and local, easily spills over any predetermined barriers. This means that acts of violence in modern world equipped with nuclear missiles and nuclear power plants can lead to catastrophic consequences.
Third, the moral climate has changed in recent decades. For citizens of developed countries, violence has become unacceptable on moral grounds. The value of human life and the sovereignty of each of the declarations are turning, if not into imperatives, then at least into norms that politicians can no longer disregard.
The problem of violence is of particular relevance for the political life of Russia, where it has always played a certain role: both at the stage of autocratic absolutism, and during the period of totalitarianism, and in the conditions of building a democratic state. In addition, in connection with the emergence of weapons of mass destruction, the problem of political violence has now acquired special significance, since in the external and in domestic politics threatens a global catastrophe. The wide prevalence and threatening consequences of its use make it necessary to understand a number of problems related to the practice of violence.
THE ROLE OF VIOLENCE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
Violence in political processes occurs in a variety of forms. There is state violence against those citizens who do not comply with legal norms. Such violence is legalized, as is violence in response to the aggression of one state against another. International law recognizes the legitimacy of using force, including military force, to protect the country's territorial integrity. The law also recognizes the right of the individual to use violence in sufficient self-defence.
However, it should be said with all certainty about the consequences for a person who used even legalized violence, not to mention those who fell victim to violence during wars, armed conflicts and periods of criminal revelry. Serious psychological transformations take place with a person, changing his attitude towards himself and other people.
There are various means of power, ways to achieve goals in politics: stimulation, authority, coercion, etc. What is the place and role of violence among them? They are determined by the specifics of violence as a means of political power.
First of all, violence is an uneconomical, costly means of power. It comes at a greater social cost than other forms of power. The social cost of violence should include:
a) human sacrifices;
b) material costs;
c) spiritual loss.
Human casualties are expressed, firstly, in the death of people, and secondly, in physical damage from the use of violence (wounds, injuries, etc.). The number of victims of violence, of course, depends on its forms. The most intense are internal wars (civil and guerrilla), uprisings, terrorism, repression and terror of totalitarian regimes.
Despite the fact that some forms of violence are not accompanied by such a large number of victims (riots, coups), they are in this respect more costly than such means of power as persuasion, economic coercion, etc.
The material costs associated with violence include the cost of maintaining the apparatus of coercion, the cost of material assets that have been destroyed as a result of the use of violence. The destruction of material assets (buildings, means of communication, transport, tools, etc.) is an inevitable consequence of the use of violence. This is evidenced by the numerous conflicts of our time, including those that occurred in the territory former USSR.
For many decades thrown back in economic terms countries that have become the scene of civil wars, ethno-political and inter-clan conflicts (Tajikistan, Rwanda, Mozambique, etc.). Even a few days of armed confrontation in Moscow in October 1993 caused enormous economic damage, which is estimated, according to various sources, from 30 to 300 billion rubles.
The costs of violence, of course, are not reducible to purely material losses. The more widespread is the use of physical coercion, the stronger its influence on the spiritual life of society. Violence causes dehumanization of interpersonal relationships.
The decline in morals, the growth of crime, mutual alienation, bitterness are always associated with the use of violence in politics. Societies with strong traditions of political and political violence social life are distinguished by the "ossification" of culture, the weakening of its creative character.
In societies saturated with violence, culture serves as a kind of tool for the coercive function of the state, serving mainly its military-political, repressive needs. So, in ancient Sparta, the entire system of education and upbringing was subordinated to a single goal - the formation of a warrior. Having learned only the rudiments of writing and counting, the Spartans could not speak in complex phrases. There was no need for this, because. it was enough for a warrior to be able to briefly and clearly give orders and sensibly repeat them.
Moral education was aimed at the formation of a person who does not know pity for the enemy. In Sparta, annual "holy wars" (cryptia) were practiced against unarmed helots, educating young people in the habit of killing. In general, in general cultural terms, Sparta lagged behind many regions. Ancient Greece. Of course, the Spartan society is a complete version of the militarized society, which is not common. However, the example of Sparta shows how far the spiritual degradation of society can go under the influence of militarization and unrestricted violence.
Violence also has an extremely strong moral influence on the personality, both the object and the subject. Of course, the scale and, accordingly, the price of violence may be different. The subjects of power usually seek to reduce their losses, to limit violence in some way. However, this is far from always possible, since the most important feature of violence as a means in politics is the high degree of risk associated with its use, unpredictability.
Actually, the goals and results of any activity, including political ones, never completely coincide. The incomplete coincidence of the goals and results of the activity is expressed, firstly, in the fact that the subject does not achieve what was originally planned, and secondly, in the side effects of the subject's actions. How to explain the discrepancy between goals and results of activities? First of all, the non-identity of mental representations of reality, reflected in the goals, and the reality itself, which is revealed in the course of the implementation of the goals.
A goal is an ideal anticipation of performance. In the process of goal-setting, it is impossible to take into account all the circumstances of social activity, the impact of various forces, the conflicting interests of people participating in the process of activity. Political activity in which violence is used is particularly unpredictable. Violence is difficult to control, to limit within certain limits (scale, objects, etc.), strictly dosed. Often in history, attempts to limit violence have failed. Thus, the leaders of the Jacobins hoped that the period of repression would be short-lived, and that the "golden age" of France would follow. In fact, the "golden age" never came, despite the terror, which lasted almost a year.
The leaders of the Bolsheviks were sure of an easy victory over tsarism, which they compared to a rotten wall capable of collapsing with a single blow. They repeated many times that their use of violence during the revolution was temporary.
Political action accompanied by violence is characterized not only by the uncontrolled escalation of physical coercion, but also by unpredictable changes in the formulation of goals.
As you know, motives political activity may have different degrees of rationality, i.e. awareness by the subject of his interests and goals, the validity of the chosen means of action.
As for the political activity associated with violence, it, like no other, is characterized by high emotional intensity and saturation.
On the other hand, violence is a manifestation of the aggression of frustrated individuals and groups, the result of social pressure that exceeds a person's ability to be patient. Therefore, the subjects of violence are often guided by emotions and feelings that have reached a violent degree of manifestation: anger, rage, hatred, despair.
In turn, physical damage (beatings, mutilations), murders cause the corresponding emotional reaction of the objects of violence. Humiliation of dignity, pain, grief cause not only fear, but also hatred, a sense of revenge. In politics, there is a certain symmetry between power influence and resistance to it. The same is true of physical coercion: violence begets violence. The unpredictability and uncontrollability of violence are also determined by specific socio-psychological phenomena that arise in the process of carrying out acts of violence.
In the course of the violent actions themselves, in the "fever of battle" it is difficult to maintain self-control, to control one's emotions. The threat of physical harm, and possibly death, and other experiences introduce a significant element of randomness into political actions associated with violence.
Violence, of course, is motivated by more than just strong emotions. It may be the result of dispassionate logic. Moreover, it is often committed by persons who do not feel any hostility towards the object of violence, but only perform their professional duty (military, police, etc.). However, even a rational decision involving the use of physical coercion can be subjected to emotional erosion in the process of implementation and be marked by unexpected turns.
A powerful psychological unpredictable effect on a person is exerted by the violence committed by the crowd. A crowd is an unorganized collection of people whose behavior is regulated by collective emotions. The crowd is characterized by the disappearance of individual consciousness, the formation of a collective "unconscious", a decrease in the intellectual potential, the responsibility of its participants. The emotional influence of the crowd is difficult to overcome, it is based on the principle of "contagion".
At the same time, the crowd is “infected” with destructive behavior. The emotions of the crowd are destructive, impulsive, unstable, hypertrophied, impatient and intolerant of other people's views and behavior.
Therefore, the actions of the crowd are characterized by aggressiveness and a tendency to violence. Individuals fall victim to the destructive behavior molded by the crowd. A person who under normal conditions is not prone to aggression, in a crowd may be "infected" with the virus of violence. Therefore, mass forms of political violence are particularly unpredictable and uncontrollable.
It should be noted that the specific nature of the impact of physical coercion makes its subjects systematically turn to this means. The object obeys the powerful will only if he is sure that the threat to use violence against him (in case of disobedience) is real. Therefore, the threat of violence must be periodically accompanied by its direct use.
Of course, in political systems areas characterized by widespread use of violence in power relations, its scale may decrease over time. The objects of power, fearing reprisals, are able to obey without the actual use of violence, under the influence of a kind of “residual effect” of physical coercion.
Thus, in totalitarian regimes, the scale of terror is gradually reduced. In this case, the following mechanism operates: direct (direct) violence causes fear, which weakens the resistance of the object; additional violence causes even greater fear, which, together with the physical elimination of activists, causes the cessation of resistance, which allows the subject of power to limit himself to the threat of violence and reduce the volume of its real use. The latter signifies the achievement of maximum stability by the political regime. However, violence continues. The unpredictability of the escalation of violence is also explained by organizational reasons. Complete discipline is also difficult to achieve among the soldiers of the regular army and the police. It is all the more difficult to ensure strict compliance with orders, commands, instructions in irregular military formations (partisan detachments), in combat groups of oppositionists or in a crowd. There are frequent cases of "amateur", spontaneous actions and other violations of discipline.
Finally, the military-technical aspects of violence hinder its selective use. The effect of using any weapon is unpredictable. A simple rock thrown at a policeman can hit anyone, hit a few people. Modern heavy weapons are even less selective.
The number of victims of a grenade, shell, bomb, rocket explosion cannot be predicted. In this case, people who were not originally the object of violence (accidental victims) may suffer. The experience of violent conflicts shows that it is primarily the civilian population that suffers from them (regardless of the subjective intentions of the parties to the conflict). According to statistics, in modern conditions it makes up 90% of the victims of conflicts.
The escalation of violence, its uncontrolled outbreaks, the appearance of random victims can radically change the perception of violent actions, their nature and consequences, and prevent the achievement of the originally set goals. Therefore, the use of violence as a political means always contains a significant element of risk. .
Violence, as has been repeatedly noted, as a political means is characterized by confrontation. Political power is a system of connections, relations between its subjects and objects. At the same time, the parties to power relations simultaneously mutually posit and mutually negate each other, being in a state of contradictory unity. At the same time, the forms of power relations differ from each other in terms of the dialectic of positing and negation: from power, in which one or both sides strive for the complete negation of opposites, to power, in which the parties tend to unity.
Violence is a sign of those varieties of power relations that involve the antagonism of subject and object. First, it is an expression of the indifference of the subject to the interests of the object, those against whom physical coercion is directed. Violence is the most overt, visible means of political and social domination in general. Unlike hidden, softer methods of domination (manipulation, persuasion, stimulation), it directly and grossly restricts the freedom of a social agent by physical influence on him (restriction of freedom of movement, temporary incapacity, physical elimination).
By turning the other party into a mere object of physical manipulation, violence transforms social and political relationships into a one-way process.
In a totalitarian state, mass terror reduces the variety of forms of communication interaction to a monotonous type: a violent signal is an automatic, reflex response. This leads to a reduction in the space of the sphere of communication, the canonization of the transmitted information, the elimination of everything that does not coincide with the official ideology.
Violent clashes, such as in civil wars, are difficult to stop once political leaders reach a truce. Field commanders whose comrades died are ready to disobey orders and continue fighting in order to avenge the death of loved ones. Their behavior is subject to a special logic - "the logic of spilled blood." Many examples of this kind are given to us by internal wars in various countries (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, etc.).
Violence, used at least once, significantly reduces the space for political maneuver and compromise. The seeds of mutual hatred, sown during the civil war between the clans of the North and South of Yemen in the early 1960s, gave tragic sprouts 30 years later, when North and South Yemen were again united into a single state. In 1993, fighting took place between the armed forces of the northerners and southerners, which ended in the defeat of the latter and the capture of Aden.
Violence as a means in politics is different in that it contributes to the spread of autocratic tendencies in society. States that have experienced any significant violent conflict are characterized by the tightening of political regimes.
Historical experience shows that violence that paves the way to power for a certain group of people always leads to a more or less long period of lack of freedom, terror, and persecution. Dictatorships arose after the three most famous revolutions (the English of the 17th century, the French of the 18th century and the Russian of 1917). The victories of the armed national liberation movement in Latin America in the 19th century only strengthened the authoritarian regimes on the continent.
The events taking place on the territory of the former USSR also confirm this pattern. The political regimes established as a result of armed conflicts in Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Tajikistan are clearly authoritarian and even semi-criminal in nature. The lawlessness, repressions, rampant crime that characterize the socio-political life in these regions create serious obstacles on their way to civil society and the rule of law.
Why is violence autocratic?
First of all, violence has inertia, the ability to turn into a tradition of political life, displacing non-violent forms and methods of political activity inherent in democracy. Where violence has proven its effectiveness, for example, when separating from some state (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria), when seizing power (Russia, 1917, Nicaragua, 1979), there is a temptation to use it in the future for other purposes.
The fact that violence can become the norm of political life, a habit, is clearly seen from the modern history of Russia. The first clashes between police and opposition demonstrators in February 1992 caused a storm of protest. The May 1993 riots, much more bloody, no longer shocked the mass consciousness. The street fighting of October 1993 was already watched by thousands of "onlookers" who perceived the tragedy that was taking place simply as a spectacle.
The use of violence requires the formation of a certain repressive apparatus (armed forces, special services, law enforcement agencies or militant groups, etc.), which claims a special status and privileges. The apparatus of coercion has no desire to lose its "warm places", privileges, and influence. Therefore, it cannot be in a non-working state and does not stop its work after the power is seized or the violent confrontation is stopped. The apparatus of repression and violence in the subsequent period strives to prove its importance and necessity. For this, the cases of "enemies of the people" are fabricated, imaginary subversive elements and spies are sought.
Moreover, one can observe a certain dependence of civil authorities on the institutions of coercion. As a result of armed conflicts, the role of the army and armed irregular formations in political life is inevitably growing. Therefore, despite the end of violent conflicts, an atmosphere of militarism persists in society. The rulers, who came to power by force, actively use the army in the future. Sulla had an army of 40 thousand people, J. Caesar - 50 thousand people, Emperor Augustus - 400 thousand people. The last Roman emperors actually lived in a military camp.
The role of the army in political life noticeably increases after the major military cataclysms of the 20th century.
Thus, Generals Eisenhower and De Gaulle owe much of their rise to military prowess. Fearing such a political rise of Marshal Zhukov, Stalin, and then Khrushchev, disgraced him.
Even minor violent clashes contribute to the increase in the political weight of the army elite. Thus, the confrontation between the two branches of power in October 1993 strengthened the influence of the leadership of the Russian armed forces, which supported the president's actions and played a key role in his victory over the opposition. The power structures had a noticeable impact on the subsequent political actions of the executive branch (in the field of combating crime, in the Chechen crisis, etc.).
The role and political influence of political investigation bodies and special services are growing no less significantly. The hypertrophied increase in the staff of state security agencies, their monopoly on secret information, lack of control lead to the fact that their positions in a number of cases become key in making political decisions. Thus, it is known that the state security agencies initiated many political actions of the leadership of the CPSU. Many Soviet politicians came out of the ranks of the police, the KGB and other power structures. The most famous of them are Andropov, Aliev, Shevardnadze and others. The same situation is typical for modern Russia.
The widespread use of violence in internal political conflicts can provoke the rise to power or the strengthening of the positions of supporters of a harder political line, both among the ruling elite and the opposition (through a military coup, for example).
Violence poses a danger to democratic institutions also because it ultimately requires the restructuring of the entire social, economic, and political system. Society begins, as it were, to serve the coercive function of the state. In the event of a threat from outside or an acute internal political confrontation, a special regime is introduced in the economy, some fundamental rights and freedoms are canceled or suspended, etc. All this is justified by the need to fight against "internal and external enemies." J.-J. Rousseau wrote: “It is also easy to understand that war and conquest, on the one hand, and growing despotism, on the other, mutually help each other, ... that war simultaneously provides a pretext for new monetary extortions and another no less plausible an excuse to constantly maintain numerous armies in order to keep the people in fear.
The use of violence, especially on a large scale, requires the mobilization of all material and human resources, strengthening the centralization of power, its directive character. Not surprisingly, in warlike Sparta, the form of government was oligarchy, and in more peaceful Athens, democracy.
The use of violence leads to the transformation of the internal structure and opposition organizations. Violent struggle for power is inextricably linked with illegality. The illegal, underground existence of extremist groups forces them to maintain strict ("iron") discipline. At least strive for it.
Power in these organizations is concentrated in the hands of a few leaders who are members of the governing bodies. Any dissent, disagreement with the decisions of the leadership is excluded. There are known reprisals against traitors, people who have shown even the slightest doubt about the correctness of the actions of the leaders.
Such massacres are carried out with demonstrative cruelty in order to intimidate others. So, in the left-wing terrorist organization RAF, the murder of the "traitor" was entrusted to his brother. In Italy, in one of the prisons, the renegade terrorist D. Soldat was gagged with broken pieces. The Japanese "Red Army" tortured several of their fighters for disagreeing with the tactics of the leadership. People were stabbed with daggers, thrown out bound in the cold, their tongues cut off. The leaders of the fascist illegal organization "Werwolf", uncovered by the FSK of Russia in 1994, ordered to kill with particular cruelty one of the members of the group, who was considered a traitor.
Freedom of action in illegal groups is also constrained by a special organizational structure. Because of the fear of failure, they are usually broken up into small "combat units", the rank and file of which are unfamiliar with the composition of other units. Accordingly, they are removed from the decision-making process throughout the organization. The control monopoly is concentrated at the top.
Thus, all the threads of power in the Russian terrorist organization "Narodnaya Volya" (second half of the 19th century) were in the hands of the members of the Executive Committee. He was never elected by all Narodnaya Volya. The Executive Committee arose as a result of the unification of a group of persons and was further supplemented by co-optation. The candidate was proposed by five members of the Committee, and to elect him for every "negative" vote, two "positive" ones were needed.
The same undemocratic system of governance exists in modern terrorist organizations. Thus, in the Italian Red Brigades, the authoritarian executive committee monopolized the activities of this organization. The need to preserve the integrity and survival of an organization operating in the underground determines the maintenance of the strictest discipline and regulation of its internal life.
The "Red Brigades" for this purpose have developed a document "Safety standards and style of work." The document proceeded from the fact that “all political work of each comrade should be concentrated in a column. All political relations must therefore be monitored and evaluated.” It programmed the behavior of a member of the organization to the smallest detail, predetermined what kind of housing to choose, how to dress, what items you must have in the apartment.
The organization had the right to control the behavior and lifestyle of brigadiers in everyday life. "Safety Standards" emphasized the obligation to consult with immediate supervisors when meeting people. Even family relationships had to be controlled by the organization.
Since standardization and control over the behavior of the rank and file is the norm in the opposition underground, an atmosphere of surveillance and suspicion is quite typical of them.
Thus, the practice of violence contains the potential of autocracy, which is embodied in the non-democratic, quasi-totalitarian structure of illegal organizations, and then in the forms and methods of activity of the political regime established by force. Violence, systematically used against the opposition, is also capable of ultimately deforming the political system and strengthening authoritarian tendencies in it.
CONCLUSION
As we can see, violence is a political tool with a number of specific features. The main ones are: 1) high costs associated with its use; 2) unpredictability, riskiness; 3) confrontation; 4) autocracy.
The specificity of violence shows that certain consequences are associated with its use, including those dangerous for subjects, which must be taken into account when choosing means in politics. The price paid for the use of violence can sometimes be much higher than real results achieved with it. However, violence has been widely used in politics throughout human history.
So, it is able to bring certain results, to be effective?
The effectiveness of political violence in the performance by subjects of politics of the functions of retaining and protecting political power has both general and special and individual distinctive characteristics compared to those inherent in the function of gaining political power by other means. For a modern society, which requires such personality traits as independence, initiative, creativity, the forcible regulation of social relations is of little use.
Violence in general can be assessed as a political means of low efficiency, since with a low degree of achievement of the set goals (due to the unpredictability of violence), it is associated with high social costs. Violence is more effective in dealing with destructive tasks of a tactical nature than in achieving long-term constructive goals.
Despite the low efficiency, political violence can bring the expected results in certain specific historical situations. The conditions for the effectiveness of violence are the sufficiency of resources; legitimacy; mastery of the art of using violence (flexible combination of violence with other means of power, taking into account the social conditions of the activities of political subjects, logic and consistency in the use of physical coercion, compliance with the measure of violence); presence of favorable foreign policy factors; political and legal, socio-economic, moral and psychological expediency, justification. The criterion for the justification of political violence may be its compliance with the progressive needs, values and moral principles of society. The moral assessment of political actions associated with violence greatly affects not only their course, but also the prospects for political processes. On the other hand, the defense or assertion of certain moral values is impossible if political violence is ineffective.
Summing up the work, I would like to add that only the power that suits people, that gives them something, or about which they think that it gives them something, can be stable. This "something" can be material - for example, a high standard of living, it can be a sense of security or a belief in the justice of the social order. It can be the joy of belonging to something bright, powerful and beautiful.
Ideal societies do not exist. However, Churchill's remark that democracy, though terrible, is the best of all possible forms board, apparently, is shared by most of our contemporaries. At the very least, even the British or Americans who are critical of their governments very rarely propose to replace the existing and disappointing system with another one based on principles tested in communist China or Nazi Germany.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Degtyarev A.A. Fundamentals of political theory. - M .: Higher school, 1998.
2. Irkhin Yu.V., Zotov V.D., Zotova L.V. Political science. - M .: Jurist, 2000.
3. Dmitriev A.V., Zalysin I.Yu. Violence: A Socio-Political Analysis. -M.: ROSSPEN, 2000.
4. Political science / Ed. V.D. Perevalova. – M.: Norma, 2003.
5. Pugachev V.P., Soloviev A.I. Introduction to political science. - M., 2003.
Escalation is an expansion, an increase in something (for example, the armament of a state). The word escalation is also used in the sense of artificial build-up, intensification of the conflict.
Frustration (lat. frustratio - “deception”, “failure”, “vain expectation”, “disorder of intentions”) is a mental state that occurs in a situation of real or perceived impossibility to satisfy certain needs.
9. If the intent of a person covers the commission by him (in any sequence) of rape and violent acts of a sexual nature against the same victim, the deed should be assessed as a combination of crimes provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, for the qualification of the deed, it does not matter whether there was a gap in time during the commission of rape and violent acts of a sexual nature against the victim.
In cases where the actions of a person contain signs of committing rape or violent acts of a sexual nature under aggravating circumstances against the victim, the deed must be qualified in accordance with the relevant parts of Articles 131 and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
10. Bearing in mind that the commission of a crime by a group of persons, a group of persons by prior agreement, an organized group entails a more severe punishment, when qualifying the actions of persons under paragraph "b" of part 2 of Article 131 or paragraph "b" of part 2 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code The Russian Federation must take into account the provisions of parts 1 and 3 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Rape and violent acts of a sexual nature should be recognized as committed by a group of persons (a group of persons by prior conspiracy, an organized group) not only in cases where one or more victims are subjected to sexual violence by several persons, but also when the perpetrators, acting in concert and using violence or the threat of its use against several persons, then commit forced sexual intercourse or violent acts of a sexual nature with each or at least one of them.
Gang rape or the commission of violent acts of a sexual nature should be recognized not only by the actions of persons who directly committed a violent sexual act or violent acts of a sexual nature, but also by the actions of persons who assisted them by applying physical or mental violence to the victim. At the same time, the actions of persons who did not personally commit a violent sexual intercourse or violent acts of a sexual nature, but through the use of violence assisted other persons in the commission of a crime, should be qualified as co-perpetration in gang rape or the commission of violent acts of a sexual nature (Part 2 of Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Actions of a person who did not directly enter into sexual intercourse or did not commit acts of a sexual nature with the victim and did not use physical or mental violence against him when committing these actions, but only assisted in the commission of a crime by giving advice, instructions, providing information to the guilty person or removing obstacles, etc. .p., must be qualified under Part 5 of Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and, in the absence of qualifying signs, under Part 1 of Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or, respectively, under Part 1 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
11. Under the threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm (paragraph "c" of Part 2 of Article 131 and paragraph "c" of Part 2 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) should be understood not only direct statements that expressed the intention to immediately use physical violence against the injured person or to other persons, but also such threatening actions of the perpetrator, such as, for example, demonstration of weapons or objects that can be used as weapons (knife, razor, ax, etc.).
Responsibility for rape or the commission of violent acts of a sexual nature with the use of a threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm arises only in cases where such a threat was a means of overcoming the resistance of the victim and there were reasons to fear the implementation of this threat. At the same time, these actions are covered by the disposition of paragraph "c" of part 2 of article 131 and paragraph "c" of part 2 of article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and do not require additional qualification under article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
If a threat to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm was expressed after rape or sexual assault in order, for example, to prevent the victim from reporting the incident to anyone, the actions of the perpetrator, in the absence of qualifying circumstances, are subject to qualification under Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and in aggregate with Part 1 of Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or, respectively, with Part 1 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
12. Rape or violent acts of a sexual nature should be recognized as committed with special cruelty, if in the course of these acts the victim or other persons were intentionally inflicted with physical or moral suffering and suffering. Particular cruelty can be expressed in mockery and mockery of the victim, torture in the process of rape, infliction of bodily harm, in the commission of rape or violent acts of a sexual nature in the presence of relatives or friends of the victim, as well as in a method of suppressing resistance that causes severe physical or moral torment and suffering of the injured person or other persons. At the same time, the court should keep in mind that when qualifying such actions on the basis of special cruelty, it is necessary to establish the intent of the guilty person to inflict special torment and suffering on the victims.
If, in the course of rape or the commission of violent acts of a sexual nature or an attempt on them, the victim is intentionally inflicted with serious harm to health, the actions of the guilty person are qualified under the relevant part of Article 131 or Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and in conjunction with the crime provided for in Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Careless infliction of grievous bodily harm to the victim's health when committing rape or violent acts of a sexual nature is covered, respectively, by paragraph "b" of part 3 of Article 131 or paragraph "b" of part 3 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and does not require additional qualification under other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The actions of a person who deliberately caused serious harm to the health of the victim in the process of rape or sexual assault, which negligently caused his death, in the absence of other qualifying signs, should be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for by Part 1 of Article 131 or Part 1 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and part 4 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
16. When committing a murder in the process of rape or violent acts of a sexual nature, the offense committed by the perpetrator is subject to qualification on the basis of the totality of crimes provided for in paragraph "k" of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Article 131 or Part 1 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, or in accordance with the relevant parts of these articles, if rape or violent acts of a sexual nature are committed, for example, against a minor or under the age of fourteen, or by a group of persons, a group of persons by prior agreement or an organized group.
If the murder is committed after the end or violent acts of a sexual nature or attempts on them in order to conceal the committed crime, or for reasons of revenge for the resistance rendered, the committed by the perpetrator should be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for in clause "j" of part 2 of Article 105 of Article 20 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation persons between the ages of 14 and 16 are liable only for rape and sexual assault.
When resolving the issue of criminal liability persons who have reached the age of sixteen, for compulsion to act of a sexual nature (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as for indecent acts against a person who is known to be under the age of sixteen (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), it must be taken into account that the law in these cases is aimed at protecting the normal development of both minors. Based on this, the court must take into account the age of both minors, the data characterizing their personalities, the severity of the consequences that have occurred and other circumstances of the case.
19. Courts must comply with the requirements of the law (the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) on the imposition of a fair punishment on the guilty within the limits provided for by the sanctions of the relevant articles of the Criminal Code Russian Federation, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, their personality, the circumstances of the case, mitigating and aggravating the punishment, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator that preceded the crime, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family.
20. Recommend to the courts, taking into account the specifics of cases of crimes provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to eliminate all issues that are not related to the case and degrade the honor and dignity of the injured person, to promptly stop the tactless behavior of individual participants in the trial.
21. In connection with the adoption of this decision, to recognize as invalid the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 22, 1992 N 4 "O judicial practice on cases of rape" as amended by the resolution of the Plenum of December 21, 1993 N 11.
Chairman of the Supreme Court
UDC 10 (075.3) BBK Yu6-67 i 73
O. A. Kovrizhnykh
Essence and typology of political violence
The article is an attempt to identify the essential characteristics of the phenomenon of political violence and to identify the main typologies of political violence developed by different authors. The article discusses the conditions under which violence can be effective tool and the method of struggle for power, the reasons for the use of political violence are analyzed. The author comes to the conclusion that political violence is a brake on the development of any state and society as a whole.
Keywords Keywords: political violence, power, riots, uprisings, conspiracies, wars, coup d'état, terrorism, revolutions, authority, power, cultural and state violence.
O. A. Kovrizhnyh
Essence and Typology of Political Violence
This article is an attempt to identify the characteristics of the phenomenon of political violence and to consider the basic typology of political violence developed by different authors. The article considers the conditions under which violence can be an effective means and method of struggle for power, analyzes the causes of political violence. The author concludes that political violence is an obstacle for the development of any state and society in general.
Keywords: Political violence, authority, revolts, rebellions, conspiracies, wars, state revolutions, terrorism, power, cultural and state violence.
The political sphere is riddled with power struggles, and in these struggles political violence is often used as an effective method to seize or retain political power. In this regard, it is necessary to reveal the essence of the term "political violence".
I. M. Lipatov believes that “political violence is an ideologically conditioned and materially secured activity of classes, nations, social groups and social institutions that realize their goals, aimed at the use of means of coercion, with the aim of conquering, retaining, using state power, achieving political dominance in the international arena, managing social processes in class interests. However, this author, in his definition, does not take into account the political elite, on the one hand, and the people, on the other, who
may use political violence for their own purposes.
A. I. Kugai understands political violence as “the suppression or forced restriction of the free will of a social subject, due to the actions of social forces: striving for political power, exercising it, asserting a certain socio-political ideal” . In connection with this definition, a controversial question arises: is a social subject always guided by sociopolitical ideals, using political violence as a means. In our opinion, more often it acts on the basis of pragmatic intentions and goals.
Historian A. Yu. Pidzhakov gives the most complete definition: “political violence is physical coercion used as a means of imposing the will of the subject with
the goal of mastering power, primarily state power, its use, distribution, protection. It is state power that is the goal, and the struggle for it with the use of political violence is the means to achieve this goal.
Political violence on the part of the state is the use of force to prevent the protest behavior of citizens, maintain internal order and tranquility. Why is it considered the best way or remedy? From our point of view, the phenomenon of political violence lies in the apparent effectiveness of its use and visible quick results.
Political violence in Russia has been used for centuries, both by the state authorities and individual political figures, and by the people or the masses. For example, in the era of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, political violence, dressed in the form of oprichnina, was used as the main tool or method of governing the country. The main goal of the oprichnina was to keep political power in the hands of the tsar and eliminate all those who were dissatisfied.
Is it possible to consider that political violence for the king was an uncontested way of governing the country? The answer to this question lies, in our opinion, both in the despotic nature of Ivan the Terrible himself, and in the effectiveness and simplicity of political violence as a method of seizing or retaining power.
A. V. Dmitriev, I. Yu. Zalysin name the conditions under which violence can be effective. The effectiveness of violence is determined by the adequacy of the resources at the disposal of those who carry it out. These resources include:
1. Human resources (the number of people who support and carry out acts of violence, including armed groups that exercise physical coercion on a regular or irregular basis);
2. Armament (a set of instruments of violence). The advantage in the quantity and quality of weapons can be an important factor, other things being equal, determining the outcome of certain political conflicts;
3. Material resources: own
ness, natural and financial resources, economic system, communication and transport system, etc.;
4. Organization. It provides orderliness, systematic influence of power, increases its effectiveness, including when using violence.
The reasons for the apparent effectiveness of political violence, in our opinion, lie in the following factors:
1. This is the most fast way obtaining political power and achieving certain goals by political leaders.
2. This is the most cost-effective way to achieve political goals.
3. When using it, the effect of demonstrating one's strength, authority, and superiority over political rivals is modeled.
The reasons for the use of political violence can be very different: political, economic, social, religious or even ideological. As political reasons, one can consider: lack of power, lack of power resources and powers, or the desire to keep power in the hands of a leader or political elite, the struggle for spheres of influence, the desire to eliminate the opposition, the struggle for independence due to the lack of national sovereignty, etc. Economic reasons can be lack or limitation of material resources, money, territory, minerals, elimination of competition among monopolies, etc. The social reasons for the use of political violence are the violation civil rights and a low level of quality of life (poverty, non-payment of wages, reduction of social guarantees and programs by the state).
In response to political violence, the government is taking steps to disperse demonstrators and restore order, which only exacerbates the tense social situation in society. An example is the unpopular decision of the modern French government to extend the retirement age for citizens of their country by two years. French President and Parliament
Humanitarian vector. 2010. No. 4 (24)
that this law is beneficial, as it allows to significantly reduce public spending on the social sphere. In response, there are massive spontaneous protests of all categories of the population of French society, led by trade unions. Religious reasons are a deviation from the purity of religion or the oppression of the religious values of one nation by another. Ideological reasons are the desire to fight terrorism, the desire to fight for the national idea, symbols, etc.
Consider various typologies of political violence. D. Galtung singled out direct and structural political violence. Direct violence has not only a precise addressee, but also a clearly defined source of violence. Structural violence is closely linked to the social system, and even the elimination of the existing political order is possible as a result.
As historical experience shows, every country has experienced and lived through the consequences of the use of both direct and structural violence. From the side of its application by the people, D. Galtung divides it into:
Riots (spontaneous, unorganized popular strikes, riots, uprisings);
Conspiracies (coup d'état, riots, terrorism);
Internal wars (guerrilla wars or revolutions).
In Russia, spontaneous riots, strikes, spontaneous riots and popular uprisings grew in "times of troubles", that is, in conditions of anarchy, arbitrariness of the authorities and in conditions of socio-economic or political crisis. They were characterized not only by different goals and results, but also by varying degrees of brutality of political violence. As a historical example, one can cite peasant riots - the uprisings of I. Bolotnikov, S. Razin. E. Pugacheva.
I. M. Lipatov divides violence according to the following criteria:
By subject (state and opposition);
Object (intrastate and interstate);
By means (armed, legal, economic, ideological);
By goals (revolutionary and reactionary);
By results (constructive and destructive).
Here are other typologies of political violence. P. Wilkinson systematizes violence according to two criteria:
1. In terms of scale and intensity, it is divided into:
Mass (riots and street violence, armed uprising and resistance, revolutions and counter-revolutions, state or mass terror and repression, civil war, nuclear war);
Small group political violence (isolated acts of sabotage or attacks on property, isolated political assassination attempts, political gang warfare, political terrorism, guerrilla raids in foreign countries).
2. According to the goals and objectives, violence is divided into:
Intra-communal (protection of group interests in conflict with hostile ethnic and religious groups);
Protester (attempts to convince the government to correct shortcomings);
Praetorian (violent changes in government);
Repressive (suppression of real or potential opposition);
Resistance (obstructs government power);
Terrorist (intimidation of victims to achieve political goals);
Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary (the desire to destroy a given political system or to protect it);
Military (victory over the enemy).
In Russia in the 90s. 20th century in the context of the socio-economic crisis, unemployment, inflation and political tension, the country was also engulfed in mass unrest and unrest with the use of political violence in its various forms. Clashes with the authorities were inevitable, civilians died when tanks and soldiers were brought into Moscow in August 1991. The political crisis was resolved by the decisive actions of M. Gorbachev and B. Yeltsin.
D. Galtung also introduced the concept of "cultural violence", under which
refers to "any aspect of culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct and structural form" . The main task of cultural violence is to give it legitimacy (legality), that is, violence is perceived as a just or necessary means to achieve goals. In our opinion, cultural violence performs an ideological function. It was with the help of ideology (fascist or communist) that the use of political violence by the authorities in totalitarian regimes was justified.
The characteristic features of political violence as a way to achieve or retain power are:
1. Inhumanity and cruelty, since this does not take into account the value of human life. The use of political violence entails numerous human casualties under the principle of "the end justifies the means."
2. Visibility of impunity for actions both on the part of the people and on the part of the government or authorities.
3. The illusion that there is no alternative to the use of other means in the struggle for their rights by the masses.
An analysis of these types of political violence allows us to conclude that, firstly, it has been used for thousands of years since ancient times. Secondly, over the centuries the methods of political violence have been improved and its forms, types and types have changed depending on certain circumstances, socio-economic and political conditions and the spirit of the historical era. Thirdly, it was and remains a fast and effective way to achieve political goals in the struggle for power, but at the same time it has negative consequences, human losses and entails social and political disasters (the experience of political repression or the consequences of terrorism).
Thus, the peculiarity of political violence (open or hidden) as a phenomenon is the use of force and coercion to implement the will of power or resist it. Political violence is undoubtedly a brake on the development of the state and society as a whole.
Bibliography
1. Galtung D. Cultural violence // Social conflicts: expertise, forecasting, resolution technologies. M. Issue. 8, 1995, pp. 34-38.
2. Dmitriev A. V., Zalysin I. Yu. Violence: socio-political analysis. M.: ROSSPEN, 2000. 327 p.
3. Kozyrev G. I. Political conflictology. M.: INFRA Forum, 2008. 432 p.
4. Kugai A. I. The nature of political violence and its role in the modern world: author. dis... cand. philosophy Sciences. M., 1993. 22 p.
5. Lipatov I. M. Essence and main forms of political violence in modern conditions (philosophical and sociological analysis): Author. dis. cand. philosophy Sciences. M., 1989. 24 p.
6. Pidzhakov A. Yu. Essence and varieties of political violence. M.: EKSMO-PRESS, 2008. 136 p.
Violence - actions taken against a person and society against their will, preventing or restricting the implementation of their will. In other words, any violence is a conflict of wills, and for its implementation it is necessary to have at least two wills, and this conflict is resolved by involuntary subordination of one will to another. However, linking violence with conflict, one should not forget that violence is not a form of conflict, the level, degree of conflict of the situation.
Some philosophers and social psychologists (F. Nietzsche, K. Lorentz) consider violence as a phenomenon deeply rooted not only in human existence, but in general in the existence of living organisms. So, in the animal world (including primates), violence is of a trophic (food) nature (which, by the way, is extremely rarely applied to members of its own species), is associated with the protection or expansion of the habitat (territory), the protection of cubs, the struggle for procreation , dominance in the herd, etc.
Political power, the emergence of the state actually continued the same intentions of violence: wars and control of resources, genocide, religious wars, security, control, sanctions. Politics is not only ideas, but also the implementation of ideas, i.e. action, including coercion. No wonder one of the generally accepted definitions of power interprets it as the right to legitimate violence. And such violence must be rationally justified, i.e. possess the characteristics of normativity, expediency, optimality, and hence consciousness (sanity and responsibility).
Violence is used in politics: when seizing power; while holding power; when modernizing, carrying out reforms that do not enjoy support and meet resistance (organizational or also personal). Violence is actively manifested in politics: as aggression and resistance to aggression, as legitimate state violence, as various forms of illegitimate violence (from aggressive protest actions to terrorism).
In political violence, one can distinguish between state violence (justified and unjustified) and non-state violence (within the country, transnational).
Violence can be justified by law or an international treaty. This is how violence against those who do not accept "our" law is traditionally justified: they are outside the law, non-humans, like animals, against whom any violence is justified.
No less paradoxical is "soft violence" - manipulation, unconscious of the objects of manipulation, in fact, seduction - the ability to make others want what is required of them. Usually exposed manipulation hits the manipulator hard. People can forgive an insult, a mistake, even treason (in case of sincere repentance) or a crime (especially if committed by force), but manipulation is not a mistake, not a weakness, but an evil prudent will when others are held for toys. And this is not forgiven. This, by the way, explains why in countries with regimes built on manipulation, history is unpredictable, there is no cumulative, coherent understanding of history: it is constantly being rewritten, heroes turn out to be villains, criminals are heroes, cities and streets are renamed, etc.
The areas of manifestation of violence are:
- informational (manipulation, persuasion, persuasion, informational and semantic wars);
- economic coercion;
- physical - from the restriction of freedom to military operations both in the country itself and abroad.
The forms of struggle against power are the same violence: protest movements, uprisings, national liberation and civil wars, revolutions, various forms of crime, terrorism.
Almost all actual problems and political discourse topics related to violence:
- power: capture, retention, distribution, punishment are associated with various forms of violence to varying degrees;
- terrorism - both terror itself and the fight against it is violence;
- manipulation has long been called soft violence;
- modernization, innovation presuppose overcoming resistance to them, i.e. again presuppose a certain violence, or at least a readiness for it.
The forms of violence are just as varied. Examples of violence are:
- murder or harm to physical or mental health;
- seizure, theft, destruction, damage to property;
- restriction of freedom of movement and activities;
- coercion to engage in any activity or confession of any ideology;
- forceful change of the political regime and socio-economic order.
Sources, causes of violence, can be:
- mental causes: ill health, psychotism, affective state;
- social conflicts, conflicts of interest;
- crime: hooliganism, robbery, robbery, murder;
- political goals: wars (both international and civil), revolutions, uprisings.
It turns out that violence is a characteristic of the situation, but not of the essence. But then where are the criteria for choosing and accepting forms of violence? In the case of the permissibility of violence, this should be the choice of free and reasonable will, but where and what are the criteria by which it can be guided?
The moral choice is realized between two extreme poles of violence:
- either man is a wolf to man, and in order to survive, in order to win a place under the sun, you must be ruthless in relation to others who limit your possibilities of nutrition, procreation. The extreme manifestation of such ruthlessness would be the killing of another;
- or if you understand that by your existence you are interfering with others, limiting their possibilities of self-realization, then do not interfere, go away, in the extreme manifestation, kill yourself.
This peculiar "paradox of rigorism" - the position of either the executioner or the victim - sets two extremes (similar to the ultraviolet and infrared borders, between which all the colors of the solar spectrum are located), between which the variants of morality and morality are realized. moral choice. Then the zone of morality is the zone of interpretations that justify the applied action.
According to M. Foucault, political violence is a kind of culture of coercion that implements the competition of morals. Then it turns out that politics is a game of free wills, in which mutual violence is a condition for freedom and self-determination, and history and life as a whole appear in the spirit of F. Engels not just as a resultant of wills, but as a resultant of universal mutual violence. And the usurpation of "free mind" by someone gives rise to "oppression of bodies", turns power into lawful violence, or more precisely, power violence into law. This is exactly how J. Sorel understood political violence, distinguishing between the violence of power, Domination, which claims to be Reason, and revolutionary, creative violence, the action of Reason against Domination.
Violence is so widespread in social life that one can speak of its certain "culture": symbols, style, rules and norms - national-ethnic, confessional, corporate (Table 7.6).
Table 7.6
"Culture", normativity of violence
|
State violence |
Criminal violence, terrorism |
|
to public opinion, the media; Hostages |
Despite calls for tolerance, special programs aimed at reducing the role of violence, interest in the philosophy and practices of non-violence in modern society, a high level of aggression persists - both in politics and in everyday life. Accordingly, active attempts are being made to comprehend the very phenomenon and "culture" of violence, which results in the intensive formation of a discourse of violence, in which special role plays its most radical form - argumentum ad morti(argument to death).
This type of argumentation is manifested in the use of the thesis and premises, corresponding reasoning containing "mortal" terms, which makes the arguments particularly convincing: "All people are mortal", "We will all be there", etc. It also manifests itself in an appeal to possible practical conclusions, in a direct threat to the life of an opponent or his relatives: “Stop! I will shoot!”, “If your daughter’s life is dear to you, you will do it,” etc. This also includes the threat of suicide: “ If you don't, I'll hang myself." Such arguments are used not only by blackmailers, robbers, racketeers, but also by law enforcement agencies and security services. Examples argumentum ad morti are the threat of military operations in foreign policy, the legal requirement for the death penalty, the insistence on the need for a state of emergency, etc.
Strength argumentum ad morti in an appeal to the biological and (and) social limit of human existence "Let you be gone!". "I'm crossing you off the list of the living" - in such a high-flown form the leader of the anarchist gang from the movie "Property of the Republic" expressed this idea. Widely used this anti dixi I. V. Stalin. "There is a person - there are problems, no person - no problems!", "Death solves all problems" - not only reasoning, but also practical action programs implemented on a national and international scale - political campaigns, repressions, apparatus work, relations in the ruling the elite.
Such argumentation is typical for "pre-logical" communities with an undeveloped and unclaimed logical culture. social communication, with purposeful rationality, appealing not to law, but to force, not to freedom, but to arbitrariness. If power is outside of morality, it is created, affirmed outside of institutional frameworks, outside of institutional freedom and responsibility, including by violence, then the formation of legitimacy resembles the "Stockholm syndrome" (when the hostages form an excuse for the actions of their captors and even develop sympathy for them). From these positions, the assertion of legitimate power appears to be a kind of sadomasochistic complex. And morality and culture arise in the process of developing an explanation and justification for the assertion of power.
So, in the event of a state of emergency, revolution, coup, the legitimacy of the new government is ensured by subsequent interpretations. Sometimes such a "nervous act of violence" does not fit into the existing system of institutions, is taken out of the scope of morality, presenting itself as a sacred action. And the more monstrous such a crime, the more sacred will be the power that arose on its basis. It is no coincidence that in most traditional myths, power is established with the help of some action that is unacceptable within the framework of profane morality. The sovereign himself, at the time of the act of asserting power, has no moral choice. It arises not before, but after - as an explanation, as an interpretation, rationalizing motivation.
However, as already noted, power and its strength cannot be equated with violence in any case. Strength as the ability to accomplish (thus, eng. power, meaning power and strength, derived from posse- to be capable) is the basis of life, exists in all its manifestations: as a vital force (vitality), as self-affirmation, as an ability to protect, and only then - as aggression and violence. Being capable of self-realization, self-affirmation is the basis of sovereign freedom, the ability to realize it. Good is by no means a negation of power, impotence. It is the flight from reality, from responsibility for what is happening, political apathy that turns into violence.
The motivation to use violence may be related to the temptation of simple solutions; forced innovation; symptoms of weakness and incompetence. Therefore, often a political moral choice consists in an alternative: either to take responsibility for one's capabilities, one's strengths (potential "evil in oneself"), or to shift responsibility to external evil ("to sacrifice to the Sphinx behind the wall"), which turns out to be a projection of one's own guilt for one's own impotence. The unbearable guilt for one's own impotence evokes some powerful external evil as an excuse for it. It is no coincidence that the slipping of society towards authoritarianism, dictatorship, and even totalitarianism is the result of a deep depression.
Therefore, it is possible to get rid of violence only by getting rid of impotence - this is the means of distributing power, power and responsibility in society so that any member of it has the opportunity for self-realization and self-affirmation, feels that he and his capabilities are considered. From existing political systems the greatest opportunities democracy has a solution to this problem.