Is Violence the Answer?

Author: Freeda Johnson

Violence has always been discouraged, but should that always be the case? Political violence can be a useful tool in highlighting a problem in a democracy and suggesting a way to address it.

While trying to understand political violence, I define it as a person or group committing a violent act with the intention of affecting the political climate. But is this necessary? Some could compare political violence to terrorism, but not all political violence has a negative implication.

Think of WWE or MMA fights. Two people are about to fight, but they are always surrounded by crowds of people willing to pay to watch. Why? Because violence forces attention. Political violence is a way for voices to be heard. Think about January 6 and the riots; it was a testament to Trump’s influence, and the violence incited was able to bring attention to the Capitol. 9/11 and Palestine all gained attention from the violence, and the violence was able to affect people’s views on the political climate. Focusing on the issue is a way of creating change and helping a democracy. This attention is a way to check democracy. When everyone is looking, people/government tend to do better. Although not all acts of violence are committed for attention, some are intended for liberation.

With being silenced or ignored in certain governmental aspects, like being unable to vote or laws limiting certain freedoms, many use violence as a way of freeing themselves from the current government. There are many examples where liberation required violence, like the American Revolution. There are many violent acts that happened for our independence, like the Boston Massacre and the Battles of Lexington and Concord. We continue to celebrate the battles it took to gain our independence on July 4. Change would not have happened with the violence, and the violence changed the political system. While revolution can be done peacefully with protests or boycotts, violence often leads to more engagement and viewership, creating civic engagement on both sides. But there are times when political violence has led to more violence.

The bitterness of violence inflicted may lead to revenge, as seen in movies like Mean Girls or Avengers. People tend to fight back, and this also happens in political violence. Political violence can lead to coups, civil wars, and genocides, where both sides are inflicting violence on each other without end. The Civil War was built upon a polarizing view from the Confederacy and the Union, which led to the war. With political violence cycling, this war was able to go on for four years. But in the end, the battle relieved some of the tension and addressed issues in our country, such as racial division with the Emancipation Proclamation and the creation of a better state with our Reconstruction Era. Violence is sometimes seen as the only option and can be justified. While the cycle might be endless to some, a start is always the beginning of the end.

While political violence is not typically seen as a means to bolster democracy, it may sometimes be necessary to check governmental powers, as in the Civil War, draw attention to the needs of citizens in countries through riots like the Boston Massacre, or avenge those who have suffered from institutional issues from the government, like the American Revolution. These reasons show why political violence is necessary and contributes to a healthy democracy.