Why do groups sometimes engage in armed violence? There is a lively debate among scholars about motives such as greed and grievance. Another driving force could be fear, but this has not received much attention. Discussions about the root causes of armed violence are important, because if we better understand the emotions and ambitions that drive such behaviour, we will be able to devise more effective ways of preventing and limiting armed violence by non-state actors. I do not mean to suggest that armed violence exercised by governments is not problematic, but it is different. I will focus here on non-state actors.
The point I wish to make is that motives are not the only factors that determine armed violence. When investigating a crime, detectives look at three major factors—motive, means and opportunity. We can usefully apply this checklist to political violence as well. To understand such violence, we must not only find out what drives it, but also what facilitates it. And if we want to discourage and suppress political violence, we again need to look at motive, means and opportunity.
It is often more fruitful to target the means and the opportunity than the motives of political violence. Motives are difficult to establish and influence. It is easier and more useful to limit the access to the tools of political violence, and to reduce the opportunities for such violence. Let us imagine a group with a strong motive to engage in political violence. If they do not have access to the requirements for such violence, that is to say, leaders, fighters, money, arms and ammunition, it will be difficult for them to engage in violent action. The easier their access to the tools of violence, the greater the chance that they will indeed engage in such action, the wider the scale on which they can operate, the greater the damage they can cause, and the longer they can sustain such action. All other things being equal, of course.
Now let us imagine that our hypothetical group has all it needs to engage in political violence, but is facing an unfavourable environment. If they go ahead with their plans, they are likely to be arrested, tried and punished. They will face intense disapproval from the population, including their own communities. The public will not understand why they chose the path of violence instead of using peaceful and legal forms of political action to pursue their objectives. Such a hostile environment makes violent action difficult, unattractive, unlikely to spread, and unlikely to last long. By contrast, if there is nothing to deter or dissuade our violent activists from carrying out their plan, if they have reason to believe they will gain public approval and support, if there are few lawful opportunities for settling political disputes, and if it is considered normal and appropriate for conflicts to be settled by violence, then our violent activists will be encouraged to carry out their plans. Indeed, if they have motive, means and the opportunity, they may well achieve what they are aiming for.
I think this means that if governments and civil society wish to prevent and discourage political violence, they should be looking carefully at ways of limiting the means and opportunities for such behaviour, rather than focussing primarily on motives.
Weapons control is one useful example of limiting the scope for violent action. Guns do not kill people, of course. But in disputes and in danger, people are more likely to shoot, wound and kill other people if they have easy access to small arms, light weapons and their ammunition. Therefore I think governments should strictly regulate and control the possession, transfer, transport and use of such items. However, they should acknowledge that citizens sometime have a legitimate need for weapons to defend themselves and their families, if the police cannot provide adequate protection. In conflict-ridden countries, promoting effective weapons control can make a very useful contribution to the prevention of criminal and political violence.
The same applies to government reform. Security system reform, as advocated by the OECD, seeks to make the security agencies and the judicial system more effective, while at the same time enhancing their integrity. The police must be capable of enforcing the law, but they must also gain the confidence and support of the communities they serve. The military must have the capacity to defend the sovereignty and integrity of the country, but must be under the command of civilian politicians who are accountable to the elected representatives of the people. The law must apply equally to all citizens, high and low. It must protect their rights, and hold them accountable for any violations of the law. The fundamental freedoms and liberties of all citizens must be guaranteed against government encroachment, but citizens must also feel an obligation to participate in political life and uphold the law. This is a safe and enabling environment for peaceful political action, but discouraging to those who seek to impose their will through political violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment