Blog #8
In almost
every country or state, some form of political violence has occurred at one
time. This statement could be considered to be an exaggerated observation,
every country cannot possibly have had political violence in it; however,
according to several political scientists, political violence is extremely
common. Political violence is defined as being, “the use of force by states or
non-state actors to achieve political goals” (258). When forming new states or
organizing governmental control in a state, the way to establish political
legitimacy and legitimized authority is often through fear. Fear enabled
through the usage of violence. Within the definition of political violence
there are four types of violence: first civil war, second revolution, third
terrorism and fourth genocide. A country that has recently experienced a lot of
political violence is Darfur. The conflict in Darfur has been considered to be
several different acts of political violence, including civil war, terrorism
and genocide (War in Darfur).
The
conflict in Darfur began in the year 2003 and lasted for more than 5 years,
causing several thousands of people to die from racial conflict as well as
civil war actions. It is thought that the conflict in Darfur erupted from
several different reasons. The most prevalent reason for the conflict was about
racial differences as well as religious tensions. When hearing about the war in
Darfur many individuals, who are not familiar with the conflict, believe that
all the violence that occurred in Darfur would be considered genocide. However,
upon closer examination this is not the case; although genocide is extremely
prevalent to this case, it can be categorized as another political violence.
Genocide is one major violent
aspect of all that occurred in Darfur. Killings between those who were Muslim
Arabs and blacks was one major aspect of the conflict. It was stated, “non-Arabs of the Zaghawa people of Sudan
complained that they were victims of an intensifying Arab apartheid campaign”
(War in Darfur). Genocide was explained in the book as being, “a coordinated plan
seeking to eliminate all members of particular ethnic, religious, or national groups,
through mass murder” (279). This description is very fitting in this instance.
The conflict in Darfur follows exactly what the definition of genocide is.
There was a tension between the non-Muslims and Muslims as well as the Arabs
and blacks in the state so genocide occurred.
Another definition that can be
applied to the conflict of Darfur in 2003 would be civil war. A civil war is
defined as being, “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state
between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of
hostilities” (259). The Sudanese Arabs were in control of the government at the
time that the conflict began to emerge. This upset many blacks, who felt they were
being discriminated against as a race (War in Darfur). It was felt that the
government was creating apartheid and trying to separate the blacks from the
Arabs. In order to prevent a split and gain equal recognition the blacks
decided to revolt. Fighting between the two parties began to emerge after an
attack occurred that was done by a group known as the Darfur Liberation Front.
Equality was being demanded and change was being asked for.
In both instances, the terms of
political violence are extremely appropriate for what occurred in Darfur. Genocide
did occur within the country due to the fact that a group of people were being
discriminated against and attempts were being made to get rid of the
problematic group. As well, the definition of a civil war is quite fitting in
this case because a group of people did try to revolt against the government
system of Sudan and several hostilities. Both definitions are fitting and have
been applied well to what occurred with the Darfur conflict.
Works Cited
Samuels,
David J. Comparative Politics. San
Francisco: Pearson, 2013. Book.
“War in Darfur.”
Wikipedia. 6 Nov 2012. Web. 8 Nov 2012. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur#Mortality_figures>.
Good job showing why it fits more than one category of political violence.
ReplyDelete