If
the population widely believes that the real power in politics derives from violence
that it “comes out of the barrel of a gun”, then whoever has the most and
biggest guns will find it much easier to control the population.
Most
such populations then passively submit. Sometimes, however people who reject
the current regime as oppressive and who see the power of violence arrayed
against them conclude that they must use whatever violence they can muster
against their oppressors. This may take the form of violent rebellions,
assassinations, terrorism or guerrilla warfare. The results of these action for
the oppressed population have often been far from positive . Violent rebels are
unlikely to succeed against extreme odds and the general population most likely
will suffer massive casualties.
In
the unlikely case that violent rebels succeed in defeating oppressive rulers,
the rebels will probably have simply established themselves as a new ruling
elite in control of the state apparatus. Violence may on occasion remove the
previous rulers or groups. However, the actual relationship between the
dominant elite and the dominated
population is unlikely to be fundamentally altered by use of violence. In fact,
the violence will likely contribute to a still greater concentration of power
and an increased use of violence for political objectives.
Real
and lasting liberation requires significant changes in the power relationships
within the society, not merely replacement of personnel . Liberation should
mean that the members of the previously dominated and weak population obtain
greater control over their lives and greater capacity to influence events.
If we
wish to create a society in which people really shape their own lives and
futures, and in which oppression is impossible, then we need to explore
alternative ways to meet the society’s basic need for means of wielding power. We
also need to explore the origins of political power at a much more basic level.
No comments:
Post a Comment