Violence, Power and Legitmacy

In these decades, we see a lot of suicide bombs attack in Iraq, ordeal by arms of Tamils tigers in Sri Lanka, the violent ideology of the Basques in Spain, and bitterness response of Hamas in Middle East. On the other hand, democracy movement under brutal oppressive regime in Burma, non-violent resistance on the West Bank and in Gaza controlled by Israel, anti-dictatorship movement in Serbia in 2000 and campaigns against apartheid in South Africa and civil rights movement in United States are asking to people “Who has real power and political legitimacy?” In fact, violence, political power and political legitimacy are well connecting each other, and regimes will be disintegrated sooner or later when they lose their legitimacy of people.


In visible sides, most of people may think violence and arm struggle are powerful and change the situations, and it is a superior strategy to achieve the victories. With these concepts, along the human history, dictators and communist governments used forces to oppress the people and protect their power stability. Mao Zedong had said “power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. However, according to historical events in 20th century, civic resistances, liberation movements from invaders and self-determination refused and shook spontaneous attacks of repressive regimes, and their confrontation in front of security forces, imprisonments and guns showed ideology of Mao Zedong is totally wrong. Indeed, when a group or regime is in fear or suspect majority support of people, state terrorism is automatically created, and people are in nightmare of violence. Genocides in Bosnia, Yawanda and Cambodia, culture revolution in China in 1966-76, civil wars and democracy struggle in Burma and Islamist societies are evidences of how the states use violence to their people for power survival. On the other hand, political agendas and revenge may lead violence and use of forces. 1917 October revolution witnessed the revenge to Tsar’s era with bloodshed social change in Russia. Operation freedom in Iraq gave the reasons for regime change by forces to Saddam Hussein. But violence could not cure hope of suffering people, and devastated countries are despaired in victories.

However, unfortunately, many people and some regimes think only short-term change for their country’s future, and peace in those societies is destroyed by brutal clashes. Refugees in borderlines, political prisoners in interrogation centers, tear-gas explosions on the roads, licenses to rape and arrests in the midnights are inevitable and expected tragic events under authoritarian regime, and state terrorism has been finding the legitimacy of government. In fact, when the state or a group tries to maintain the specific level of stability for their survival, and the level they assumed for power line is falling, they will defend those dangers with fear. On the other hand, revolutionists believe that they could change the regime by carrying out explosive attack to the levels of authority, and root of power must be getting rid off. In fact, “it is not a myth that violence an alert events, it is a myth violence gives power to the people.” Along the history, people believe power is a force or influence on people to follow the course of agendas for social or political change, and it may be hard power; sanction and cohesive force or soft power; diplomatic relation and culture impact. Thus, power is belong to a group or person, and the political power is an ability of force by a person or group to control and influence on people. In 16th century, Machiavelli had guided what the Prince should practice and obey the strategies and conspiracy to maintain the power by all means, and his social change ideology was inherited by many generations. However, when corrupted political leaders and inhuman organizations hold the political power, the societies become in scary and frighten darkness days. Nazi party in Germany, Italy and Japan around World War II era, Lenin, Stalin and brutal communist regime in Soviet Unions, Mao and culture revolution, crack down on Tiananmen Square student movement by Chinese authoritarian, Milosevic and ethnic cleansing, human rights abuse by Burmese military junta and other incidents in different societies are warning to us how the political power is in danger in the hold of brutal government. Indeed, political power may be wonderful and progressive force in hand of democratic governments who really respect the wills of people, but may be abusing force in the hand of dictators and selfish authorities who oppress and violate laws of justice and liberty.

Leo Tolstoy had said “violence can never destroy what is accepted by public opinion. On the contrary, public opinion need only be diametrically opposes to violence to destroy it every action.” Therefore, according to his point of view, the political power is different with political legitimacy. The political power could drive the societies with or without acceptance of majority people. In Burma, although National League for Democracy won landslide victory in 1990 election as majority people vote to him, the power holder, the military junta did not transfer the power, but arrested many members of representatives and pro-democracy groups and tightened their power. Abuse of power led to less developing country, and economic hardship and social crisis strike regional stability not only itself but also in Asia. On the other hand, Burmese people have been arguing their political legitimacy by staging nationwide demonstrations and nonviolent resistances through out 19 years. However, the Burmese military regime realizes how to stick together with political power and political legitimacy, and without those or fall of required level, they would be endangered. Therefore, they not only ignored 1990 election result but they planned Seven-point road map to get political legitimacy. The Burmese regime hopes that from their seven-point road map, Constitution from National Convention, referendum and new election could maintain their political legitimacy for future. But according to evidences of recent demonstrations in Burma, people refuse the conspiracy theory of the Burmese junta and reject their political legitimacy in hearts of people.

In fact, political legitimacy is a law or constitution or regime that was regarded as authority by majority people, and wars in throughout the history teach us how legitimacy is so important for both people and power holders. According to Robert A. Dahl legitimacy is considered a basic condition for rule: without at least a minimal amount of legitimacy, a government will lead to frequent deadlocks or collapse in the long run. Therefore, in Romeo film, the Roman Catholic Churches have been used as pillars of Salvadorian government, and the regime seriously know how the churches are deeply influenced in the hearts of people. Therefore, whenever the regime chooses Archbishop, they have already thought the people who would support their political agendas and purpose. It is the main reason why the regime and his colleagues chose erudite and quiet Oscar Arnulfo Romero, and from his harming influence on Salvadorian people, the regime could maintain their legitimacy.

Therefore, when we examine the historical events, all governments have been seriously thinking political legitimacy and use both hard power and soft power to maintain their survival. In addition, kidnaps, tortures and other kinds of violence become weapons of fear by governments and a bitter revenge by erupted people could lead to destabilized country. However, most of time, event repressive regimes and their power are confronted by courage people, and the regimes are exposed to danger when they loose legitimacy in political struggles. In fact, the political power may use a lot of violence, but violence could not hold their legitimacy in long-term, and the regimes will be disintegrated sooner or later.