Wednesday, November 7, 2012


Blog 8
            Political science is chalked full of definitions, most of which continue to be tweaked and modified to be more useful to political scientists. Dr. Samuels offers a concise, clear definition for civil war. I will test the definition by using it in a recent event that the media deemed as a civil war.
            Certain examples of civil wars are fairly easy to cite, such as the American Civil War, but Dr. Samuels gives a very specific definition that should be able to prove itself clear and useful. In his text, Comparative Politics, Dr. Samuels defines civil war as “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties subject to common authority at the start of hostilities” (Samuels 2013). A few key aspects will make for a good proving ground: “armed combat,” “within the boundaries of a sovereign state,” and “common authority” at the start.
            Political unrest began to get a little too “unrest-ful” around March of 2011 when people decided to use fire power to get their point across. Many citizens had expressed their angst for the current government during what came to be known and the Arab Spring. After protests and other forms of political demonstration did not seem to do the trick, some resorted to the use of arms. An armed uprising against the government erupted and governmental leaders sought to quell it using the state’s army. The conflict lasted for a few months and involved armed forces.
            The definition given by Dr. Samuels seems to do well with its test for usefulness and accuracy. Both the insurgents and the state army were subject to the common authority of the current government of the time at the beginning of the conflict. The entire conflict occurred within the boundaries of the sovereign state. And finally, “armed conflict” was definitely involved. Dr. Samuels’s definition performs well according to the criteria that I can think of.
            The definition of civil war provided by Dr. Samuels did well in the proving ground and does not need to be refuted. It can easily be used to define the civil war that occurred in Syria in 2011.

Sources:
Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Pearson. 2013.
Shadid, Anthony. “Key Syrian City Takes On the Tone of a Civil War”. Published: October 1,     2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/world/middleeast/homs-syria-spirals-down- toward-civil-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> Accessed November 7, 2012.

3 comments:

  1. You definitely helped define what happened in syria but i spent most of the paper wondering where in the world you were talking about. Just a suggestion to possibly mention Syria earlier maybe in the introduction or something.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In your example the exact definition of armed conflict doesn't need to be addressed. In some instances, it would be nice to know precisely what is meant by armed conflict. In massacres for instance one side uses armed conflict but the people getting killed may not be. It doesn't have a lot to do with your post but I was thinking about it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One issue is the short time frame of the Arab spring--it resulted in pretty quick turnaround while Samuels points out that civil war lasts for some time. Something to consider

    ReplyDelete