Authoritarian political violence has been associated with the modern nation-state, colonialism and the discourse of legal legitimacy in the world, implying illegitimate governments and rogue states. This has been seen in the form of police brutality and use of excessive state power over the public, causing public outcries and protests. However, the authoritarian political violence is not the same as the legitimate state violence that is needed to create law and order in a country. The rise in international crises has raised questions over legitimate state violence of stable democracies and the asymmetrical military violence expressed by rogue governments around the world. This paper looks to examine the concept of state violence based on what is considered legitimate or illegitimate power while exploring the association between political violence, authoritarianism, and legitimacy. It analyzes violence as it relates to law, where it is both a means to an end as well as an end to itself. The paper supports the concept of state monopoly to violence due to its importance in maintaining law and order while protecting the country from external threats.
The authoritarian political violence embedded in modern liberal governments has created a debate on the difference between legitimate and illegitimate state violence. State violence is an idea set out by Walter Benjamin referring to the force that is undertaken by a sovereign state in attempting to dissolute the law in favor of justice. Benjamin wrote a piece called “Critique of Violence” after the failed Germany revolution in critiquing state violence while focusing on the militarism rather than the lawmaking character of state violence 1 . The piece discusses legitimate and illegitimate use of state violence and circumstances where the government is justified to use force to achieve justice.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Definition of violence
Violence can be defined as an action that preserves or changes the limits within which people conduct themselves. Benjamin Walter in his essay addressed the question of political violence by showing how the institution of a state can use force to conserve its organization. The piece puts into question the inherence of violence to a system of favorable laws while looking to prohibit and punish individual acts of violence. In this essay, he developed the concept of divine violence to provide a framework against the matric of legal and state force. This concept offers a tenable solution to the questions of liberal and radical democracies that has been experienced around the world. Divine violence can be used as homologous to freedom moving from the legal force and can be applied to countries described by authoritarian political violence of discrimination and lack of human rights structurally, systematically and historically. 2
The revolutionary or divine violence is nondialectical and pure to presuppose divide justice. Since the law is unjust, legality only serves as a means and ends of preserving power for states. His discussion of means and ends apply to the aspect of radical democracy concerning divine violence, authoritarianism, and legal violence. 3 According to Benjamin, all legitimate violence is historically predicted based on means-ends equation based on natural and positive law. Benjamin’s criteria of means and ends within the political realm consider how individuals who have suffered historical injustices could move to radical democracy using divine violence.
State violence
In discussing state violence, Benjamin Walter in the essay “critique of violence” mentioned several types of state violence that can be beneficial or destructive. The first type is legal violence where the state’s monopoly on violence is used to preserve the law rather than protecting a particular legal system. When force is not found in the hands of the law, it is a threat to the law itself by the mere existence of being outside the law and not the ends it may pursue. As such, states can use the monopoly on violence to make laws that benefit citizens and the entire population. The state violence is law-preserving in the sense that it initiates a legal system and ensures its continued existence.
Secondly, there is the mythical violence which is an aspect of state violence that appears outside of the legal sphere. mythical violence can be defined as the type of violence created as a law to achieve power and authority over the people. 4 It is, therefore, some law-making violence or power-making violence which is used to reinstate the legitimacy of the government. This is understood in terms of power-making violence or violence used to make boundaries that can create war instead of law. Benjamin stated that power responds to such violence with a demonstration of itself.
Divine violence is another type of state violence that contrasts with mythical and legal nature by intervening against them in favor of sacredness of the human. In defending this violence, Benjamin Walter stated that divine violence protects end-in itself by granting the ability to make choices and laws for ourselves. In this regard, divine violence does not necessarily mean ‘from God’, but it resembles God’s violence by protecting what is sacred about humanity against the coercive force of unjust laws. 5 In other words, divine violence destroys the mythical violence of law and can be understood as akin to God’s annihilation of Levite followers of Korah. For example, Korah’s followers could rise against Moses in trying to assert a privileged position over the Israelites through the desert. Due to the injustice of their arrogance, God killed them in a spontaneous and bloodless annihilation, allowing Moses and his tribes to continue without the burden of Korah’s followers. The bloodless violence is hat Benjamin Walter states as divine violence since it was the basis for Moses’ tribes to amend their ways.
Benjamin discussed aspects of natural law and positive law concerning violence, law, and justice. There is a connection between violence, law, and justice based on how violence can be used as a means to an end or as an end in itself, creating natural law that is concerned with the justice of ends and positive law that deals with the justification of a means to an end. Natural law justifies the means by the ends while positive law was assuring justness of end by justifying the means. 6 In this regard, violence as a means to an end can be justified if it is done per the law. The essay discusses violence and its relation to law and justice where violence is a means to justice. However, since violence is a means to justice, a question arises on whether it is justified.
Both natural and positive law focuses on the means-to-ends formulas that Benjamin Walter used to analyze state violence. Notably, he stated that divine violence is a principle of moral means while highlighting the historically constituted nature of state violence. Illegitimate violence is considered a natural end with the possibility to have a legitimate character in the example of military force. As such, it can be legally legitimated based on a means to an end state formula. 7
There is a question on the relationship between violence and justice as used by the state. Benjamin Walter believes there is a twofold relationship where violence is the means of instituting and protecting the law and when law-making us an immediate manifestation of aggression. 8 In Benjamin’s essay, he also described law-making and law-preserving violence by states and governments which also defines legitimate and illegitimate violence. He highlighted inherent violence that is built and embedded into the dictatorial power of modern nation-state law. Authoritarianism relates to political science based on the state of exception and individuals with supreme authority to intervene in times of crisis.
Justified violence according to Max Weber
The monopoly of legitimate use of state violence is a concept of modern state developed by Max Weber who claimed that the country is the only body which lays claim to the monopoly of legitimated use of violence. This means the state has exclusive rights to use force against citizens of its territory which occurs through a process of legitimation. Max Weber’s reflection on politics offers an opportunity to understand political violence while providing a starting point in interpreting a framework of political violence. Weber stated that politics comprises of attempts to influence a political association and a state, defining the country by its unique means of physical force and not its purpose. 9
Max Weber defined the state as a human community that has the monopoly of legitimate use of violence within a given territory. Modern states emerged by expropriating the means of domination including the use of force by establishing the legitimacy of its rule. While this does not mean the state is the only actor using violence, it implies that the state can legitimately authorize its use or grant another actor the right to use violence provided it achieves a common good. 10 Weber also examined the source of legitimate authority for state governments. He believes there is an intimate relationship between the state and violence where the government has the power to use force to achieve the legitimacy of its power. According to Weber, states violence cannot be deemed terror if it appears as justified by legitimate authority. However, legitimate state violence requires pursuing good ends through moral means to deal with an evil consequence
The state monopoly on violence in political science believes the state alone has the right to use or authorize the use of force. This monopoly is regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state and drives governance. 11 One aspect that stands out from the concept of state violence is the fact that governments use violence to establish power and sovereignty. State monopoly to violence can be seen when the government uses force to enhance laws, such as when federal agents raided the home of suspects and seize his files and notes. Today, there are many instances of the state monopoly on violence including death penalty that is authorized by the state to deter crimes or murder. This raises a crucial point on the legitimacy of the country and the legitimacy of using political violence.
Cases of police brutality have been reported in various countries all over the world demonstrating how the control of violence is still at the very essence of the state. Other governments have used aggression to pin down the opposition and deal with any threat to their country. The recent happenings across the world show that the control of violence is still at the essence of the state. For example, Russia’s president’s aggression has proved Weber’s definition of the state as an entity with a monopoly of the legitimate use of force. Vladimir Putin has been using violence proving Max Weber’s definition of the state as an entity with a monopoly on the consistent use of force. His aggression draws attention to the prevalence of state violence and the incoherent attitude towards it on American politics
However, the use of violence can only be successful in states with strong political foundations. This is because this state monopoly on violence can be challenged by nonstate actors such as terrorists or the military forces claiming autonomy from the state. Non-state actors are not allowed to use violence in their actions as it is illegitimate. Therefore, any individual or actors engaged in committing violent acts can face a similar fate from the state monopoly of violence.
Using divine violence to explain Capital punishment
The concept of state monopoly to violence can be used to discusses aspects of the death penalty and use of force to punish murder. Individuals in their capacities as civil authorities can use state violence provide it justifies the means and brings a greater good. Capital punishment has been an original topic of debate among different parties on whether the state is justified to use violence to punish violence. The aspect of state violence can help explain the justification or illegitimacy of using force during capital punishment.
Sometimes people mystify the fact that governments are justified to use violence if it serves the overall good under identifiable conditions. Under divine institution, governments are authorized to use force or threat of violence in certain circumstances, such as engaging in war or putting murders to death. 12 For example, the death sentence should be used as justifiable violence on criminals who commit a crime. The government is justified to use death sentence on bank robbers who shoot out at innocent citizens before stealing. Terrorists involved in the mass killing of people are also justified to die by capital punishment since its for a greater good or dealing with evil.
In case of death penalty, state violence is justified when the existence of a person may produce a dangerous revolution in the established form of government or when the individual has enough power to endanger the security of a nation. Since the state exists to protect communities and the public, it is justified to use state violence when it is on the verge of losing its liberty or in terms of anarchy such as losing border control.
Law-preserving violence cannot be used as a deterrence since deterrence requires certainty that cannot be attained by any law. 13 This can apply to police force used to maintain law and order or the criminal justice system use of capital punishment. It also means law enforcement officers such as police officers can use violence against armed robbers and murderers if it serves to protect innocent citizens. Opposing state violence means the government will fail to protect its citizens from external threats or internal crime such as robbery and rape. It will also mean paying tax will be voluntary without fines or imprisonment for those who evade. In essence, lack of state violence will result in no government and lack of law and order. Instead, there will be chaos
However, there is a need to distinguish between personal nonviolence and authorized civil force of a state or government. Under divine violence, God prohibited the use of their aggression for vengeance but authorized the use of violence by civilian governments in running affairs of the state. 14 The police are at the disposal of the authorities and can only use force to a certain limit. This means they have the freedom to decide how to enforce specific actions, but they have to operate within limits set by the state. However, the police cannot use this state privilege for personal reasons. For example, since they have the authority to handle aggression in preserving laws, police officers should be able to differentiate between personal and professional life. They cannot use their weapons for personal gains or force their way into the lives of people.
In essence, state violence cannot come into action in a reign of peace or a state well-fortified from enemies. At the same time, aggression cannot be used in circumstances where peaceful protestors are airing their grievances against a rogue government since the state use of violence can antagonize the uncommitted, which can be one of the unfortunate things for a state to do. 15 A government should look towards attracting and involving those who resist other than alienating them. This can be true when discussing protests that is a form of violence to change a law and accomplish a purpose.
Using divine violence to explain Radical democracy
At the same time, the literature on modern political thought introduces concepts of radical freedom and whether it can be used as an alternative to transform the current liberal-capital crisis. Questions have emerged on the most appropriate method within state violence and whether states can move from democracy to divine violence. Radical democracy is an essential element that appears when discussing state violence based on the essay by Benjamin Walter. The concept of divine violence applies in the age of political violence and can be used to explain how radical democracy can be sustained as a politics of resistance. 16 Benjamin believes divine violence is the real aggression intruding in the legal sphere noticeable only by its expiatory effects. 17 He differentiates it from legitimate legal violence since divine violence tends to strike pure immediate destruction that can stop mythical violence.
Radical democracy emerges through the prism of divine violence, seeking to break the authoritarian power and its legal legitimacy. However, there is a need to dissociate between divine violence occasioned by radical democracy and the spectrum of legitimate and illegitimate state violence. 18 This is crucial in considering the boundaries between authoritarianism and democracy in modern contexts such as violent repression of anti-racist movements in the United States. The call for fundamental justice is based on the political and analytical positions that are critical to liberalism and authoritarian violence.
An excellent example of the use of radical democracy for legitimate purposes is Cuba where small groups have used violence as a tactic to create political foundations. The groups came together to protest against government oppression and formed a party that went on to form a government. At the same time, the creation of the state of Northern Ireland can be described as an outbreak of political violence, creating divisions between Protestants and Catholics. Political violence, therefore, came into play to establish peace and democracy for people who could not agree on several issues. Northern Ireland emerged as a culmination of tensions surrounding civil rights campaigns that led to political violence from which transition occurred. At the same time, the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States represents modern radical democratic movements that are marked by offsetting the power of sovereignty in the form of imperialism and state violence or white supremacy.
The legitimacy of political violence
It is crucial to determine the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate state violence, a concept that comes out in Benjamin Walter’s essay. Authorized use of force refers to the right of a state to exercise legitimate authority over a territory. Violence distilled in its purest form relates to the use of physical force to cause damage or destruction. In legal systems, violence is used to refer to exercises of physical strength by threat or intimidation. 19 While violence and power are not the same, the state tends using violence to legitimize power. Violence is thus an instrument used by countries to wield power, especially when seeking to exert authority over people. Legal systems remain preoccupied with interpersonal violence rather than institutional violence committed by countries that affect its legitimacy. However, state violence is guaranteed, supported and underpinned by the regulatory relationship
There is an intimate relationship between the state and violence, where force is used as a means to achieve justice. The legitimacy of state violence arises when the consequences of such actions are to eliminate a greater wrong. For example, legitimacy in political violence is present when the democracy of a country is under threat and can be justified when used for situations such as during a coup. 20 For example, murders and armed robbers who would rather shoot out with the cops than surrender peacefully justifies the government to use violence that will benefit a greater good. Therefore, states can use violence either to make or preserve the law based on whether the end towards the force is used as a means is sanctioned. For example, if violence is used as a means to achieve justice such as during interstate war over borders, then it will be justifiable in making laws
Government power rests on violence and coercion
The monopoly of violence lies entirely with states which have been using state resources such as the military to achieve a purpose. Under the concept of the monopoly of force, a state is allowed to apply for the benefit of the population and can be justified to use legal and divine violence to establish legitimacy and bring law and order within the boundaries. 21 In essence, the state monopoly of power is needed to preserve the rule rather than preserve the right ends. It is essential to ensure justice and law takes precedence in the country and follows the limits placed in a territory. For example, Militarism can be defined as the mandatory use of violence as a means to the ends of a state and not violence for the right purposes. Military force is paradigmatic of all violence for natural ends that can be used in lawmaking. American militarism has seen the government promoting American values through the use of state violence for the benefit of the country.
In this regard, governments can use state violence to create laws which set boundaries of behavior and can be achieved by state violence. For example, police violence is one way of setting limits for permissible behavior where they are involved in making and preserving the law through their actions. In essence, police violence is a form of the intensity of the state that asserts particular legal claims and influences the limits within which individuals conduct themselves. 22 For example, traffic police officers can set laws on highways for reckless drivers by packing on a particular intersection of the road to cause drivers into slowing down to the speed limit.
Violence sometimes can be referred to as the breakdown of civility especially when it is found in the wrong hands of terrorists. The concept of civilization emerged when governments and states ruled and gained control over larger areas and used religion and books to maintain social hierarchies and consolidate power over populations. A civilized society can be described as one where there are specialized labor and social hierarchy among other components. 23 A state can be defined as an organized community living under a single political structure, which consists of present-day countries. The political structures provided by states are crucial in the rise of civilization as it helps tie communities together by connecting them under a universal political system.
A state holds power over its constituents where this power can be used to benefit the entire population. The modern welfare state is based on this idea of using state power to help the population. Issues such as dealing with terrorists are one way in which state violence can be used towards nonstate actors for the benefit of society. A state is formed with the purpose of protecting its people from external threats through the use of military force. In this regard, it is illegitimate for nonstate actors to use violence for any course. However, protests and demonstrations show how violence can be used to modify legal conditions. It illustrates how violence can confront the law with the possibility of creating a new one, explaining why modern law takes a right to force away from individuals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the critique of violence provides a chance to understand state violence and its association with law and justice. This paper states that violence cannot be considered illegitimate if the purpose is to eliminate a greater good. Benjamin condemned mythical violence while advocating for divine violence as due to its ability to purify the guilty of the law. He called for a revolution that constitutes a new historical era returning people to the time before divine violence. 24 Justification of violence can happen if it can be shown to overthrow a lasting suppression of human life and achieve a greater good. Instruments of state violence can promote net good such as using authorized violence to protect innocent people. This is especially justified when it is used against aggressors who would harm innocent people and cause real injustice. Understanding power as authentic leadership by legitimate authority can help understand some polarized issues such as state violence in deadly violence or when dealing with protestors.
At the same time, the state can have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, but this does not mean it should be wasteful with it. There can never be justification for political violence since politics breeds violence due to the selfishness of human beings. 25 The government may be allowed to use force in dealing with any actor disrupting the democracy of a country or the peace of a nation. Therefore, state violence is not just metamorphic or an aberration, but rather a daily occurrence happening around the world.
Works Cited
Benjamin, Walter. "Critique of violence.” In id. Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings (E Jephcott trans.)." (1978).
Butler, Judith. Critique, coercion, and sacred life in Benjamins" Critique of Violence" . 2006.
Guzmán, Luis. "Benjamin’s Divine Violence: Unjustifiable Justice." CR: The New Centennial Review 14, no. 2 (2014): 49-64.
Jacques, Derrida, Cornell Drucilla, Rosenfeld Michel, and Carlson David Gray. "Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority.’." Deconstruction and the possibility of justice. New York/London: Routledge (1992): 3-67.
Khatib, Sami. "Towards a politics of “pure means”: Walter Benjamin and the question of violence." Conflicto armado, justicia y memoria 1 (2015): 41-65.
Sinnerbrink, Robert. "Deconstructive Justice and the “Critique of Violence”: On Derrida and Benjamin." Social semiotics 16, no. 3 (2006): 485-497.
Zizek, Slavoj. "From democracy to divine violence." Democracy in what state (2011): 100-120.
