Violence as a tool for statecraft: What role political use of violence plays to form and sustain the state

Abstract

In human history, violence has had a profound impact on social, political, and economic facets of existence. Violence against people can take many different forms, such as psychological, physical, and economical abuse. Systems of social injustice that obstruct the fulfilment of basic needs give rise to structural violence. It appears as invisible acts of discrimination, torture, and murder. As another form of violence, biases and attitudes are often the result of cultural or symbolic violence, which is shaped by social culture. Unfair power dynamics and opportunities in life are referred to as the invisible level. Even though violent acts may seem unsettling in today's society, historically states have utilized violence to forge and maintain their identities. In this thesis, the complex relationship between statecraft and violence has been examined, along with how it is employed to establish and sustain states; where the ethical and political boundaries of use of violence as statecraft are and if any possible necessity exists to use violence in statecraft. Violence, as was previously mentioned, has existed from the beginning of time. Historically, state-to-state wars have been the primary means of resolving political disputes. However, the Age of Enlightenment also brought new concepts to society, like freedom of religion, politics, and the economy. The question of why states occasionally threaten one another with violent expressions in the smallest political dispute is undoubtedly curious in today's world; even though freedom, fundamental rights, and modern world citizenship that emerged with the Age of Enlightenment should bring about a more peaceful political sphere make sense. Despite the difficulty of finding a straightforward solution, numerous academic disciplines are searching for solutions to the problem of violence. This thesis investigates the intricate connections between violence, governance, and state formation. Driven by the desire for historical justification and legitimation, it raises significant questions that highlight the moral and political boundaries of statecraft violence. One of the aims of the thesis is to determine the line separating the legitimate and illegitimate use of force in order to protect political order and national security. Besides that, it looks at the complex relationship that develops between violence, revolution, and constitution, bringing up issues with how violent upheavals affect social and legal frameworks. The relationship between the act of establishing power through force and the law is examined in this thesis as it explores the mechanisms of state establishment and maintenance through violence. The method used in this thesis includes a comparative theoretical analysis. The relations of the concepts of violence and the state with violence and its place in state affairs, the effects of constituent concepts of violence and law on each other, and finally, the effects of revolutionary violence on violence and the political sphere have been investigated comparatively. The comparative readings can be elaborated as follows: the differences in Niccolo Machiavelli and Max Weber's understanding of the state, how the state and the phenomena of violence interact with each other within an ethical and political boundary were mentioned. Later, the interaction between constitutive violence and laws was discussed through Edmund Burke and Michel Foucault. In the next section, topics such as how revolutions change the structure of a state, what violence means for a revolution, and whether every revolution ends in "bloody or with blood" are discussed through Thomas Paine, Hannah Arendt and Frantz Fanon. This discussion was conducted by taking the American Revolution as a case study. It has been discussed what kind of relationship there is between constitutive violence and constitutional formation in the establishment of the United States after the American Revolution, and what kind of necessity it has in state affairs. In order to make a meaningful contribution to the academic literature, this thesis compares the perspectives of thinkers who have not been compared in terms of political philosophy in order to discuss the phenomenon of violence and determine the moral and political boundaries of violence, as well as the role that violence plays in political use and the relationship between violence, revolution, and constitution. Whether or not it is morally acceptable to use violence as a tool of statecraft is up for debate. Some believe that violence is a necessary evil for maintaining law and order and protecting the country from its enemies. Some argue that violence is never appropriate and that there are always nonviolent ways to achieve political goals. These debates will likely continue for as long as states are in existence. A careful examination of political theory, history, and current events is necessary to comprehend the complex and nuanced relationship between violence and statecraft since there is currently no clear-cut, straightforward response to this claim. Indeed, the use of violence in statecraft is influenced by a wide range of factors. These include things like the state's rulers' aim to hold onto their rightful position of authority, the necessity of defending the state's borders and populace, and their worry for the welfare of the economy and society. Even though these reasons may be accepted as plausible causes for using violence as a tool for statecraft, the consequences of violence can be destructive most of the time. In summary, this thesis shows that the constituent violence that occurred during the establishment of the state is necessary for the continuity of the state, as long as its ethical and political boundaries are determined and protected within the framework of the laws, the phenomenon of violence will continue to exist on the basis of the state, but this phenomenon of violence should not be abused by those who hold political power in their personal interests, only the border security of the state, it argues that it can use it for defensive purposes in situations that endanger the independence and security of its citizens, and again perform these actions within ethical and political boundaries.