Throughout human history, a form of political authority has been in control. This political authority is a form of monopoly where the state protects itself against external threats and defeats their enemies. This control shifted private war to public war, meaning that civilians use the freedom that they would use on one another, and focus it onto the state instead. A state’s control over violence is never guaranteed because other states are always a potential threat. Violence, especially public violence, can advance so greatly that the state can lose its power. Political violence is a form of violence that is politically motivated and cannot be controlled by the state, and consists of civil wars and revolutions as well as a more peaceful approach of protesting. It functions beyond state power and has a political objective that is achieved through force (O’Neil, 210).
There are many explanations as to why political violence occurs. Three diverse causes of political violence are institutional, ideational, and individual. Institutions are organizations or activities that are treasured for their own use. “Institutions define and shape human activity, and institutional explanations argue that their specific qualities or combination are essential to political violence.” Institutions consist of political institutions like states and regimes, economic institutions like capitalism, and societal institutions like culture and religion. “It may be that institutions contain values or norms that implicitly or explicitly encourage political violence, or that they constrain human activity, thus provoking political violence.” Institutional explanations of why political violence occurs when one or more of these options come into conflict with each other or with themselves because disagreements occur, and in a more severe case violence occurs as well. The opportunity for “power sharing” in winner take all outcomes, such as presidencies, produce a greater chance for conflicts, which result in political disputes and violence. When there is no other form of participation, political violence can occur (O’Neil, 211).
Ideational explanations clarify the ideas and foundation of the violence. Ideas can be institutionalized, like a political organization or religion, or institutionalized without an organizational base. Ideas play a vital role in political violence due to their view of problems and how they attempt to resolve those problems. Political violence is believed to be able to solve those problems. “Political violence is more likely to be associated with attitudes that are radical or reactionary, since each attitude views the current institutional order as bankrupts and beyond reform.” Ideational factors define problems, impute blame, and deliver solutions by trying to transform the status quo. Their reaction to the political status quo plays a major role in determining the method they are planning on utilizing (O’Neil, 211).
Individual explanations focus on those who commit the acts of political violence, including their motivations and incentives. Psychological factors, such as the circumstances that lead people towards acts of violence, are examined. “Such factors can be a function of individual experiences, or they might be shaped by broader conditions in society, such as levels of economic development or gender roles.” This approach focuses on what drives people to acts of violence, such as “expression of desperation, the desire for liberation, or social solidarity.” Religious violence typically occurs when humiliation is an incentive, once an individual’s believes and values are degraded by society. Revolutionaries and terrorists view violence as a method of restoring meaning to their lives and are undaunted with whether or not their actions are working effectively in achieving their objectives. Political violence is unpredictable and has appeared in a numerous different circumstances (O’Neil, 212).
There are many different forms of political violence. Civil war, military coupes, assassination, rebellions, riots, and ethnic conflict are just a few examples of political violence. The two main types of political violence are revolutions and terrorism. Both types pursue intense change. Revolution is “an uprising of the masses, who take to the streets, seize control of the state, and depose the old regime,” while terrorism is “much more secret and hidden, a conspiratorial action carried out by a small group.” Any form of dramatic change is labeled as revolutionary and has a progressive connotation (O’Neil, 214).
The word “revolution” has many different meanings, but in this case it means “a public seizure of the state in order to overturn the existing government and regime.” Revolutions have organizers and leaders who play vital roles and entail public participation that play an important role in gaining power. A revolution’s goal is to remove the entire regime, rather than just those in power. Protests and uprisings that are used to pressure the leader to into leaving office are not revolutionary. Revolutions aspire to remake the institutions of politics, as well as the economic and societal institutions. Violence is “difficult to avoid” given the circumstances and the intense ambitions of revolutions, but not all revolutions are violent (O’Neil, 214).
Revolution has been grouped in three different phases. The first phase took place before World War II. Scholars didn’t explain the revolutions, but rather described them. Explanations were disorganized and blamed poor government policies or the leaders. In the second phase, which was post World War II, social scientists pursued more “generalized” explanations. Their research emphasized different areas, but still shared the belief that “dramatic economic and social change or disruption, such as modernization, was central in sparking revolutionary events.” This perspective focused on individualistic roles as “potential revolutionaries” and aimed to understand what moved the revolutions (O’Neil, 216).