On our last tutor lecture, we discussed about how politics turn to violence. And before ending the class, our professor asked us “How can we end violence?” I personally, had a difficult time answering this because I don’t think violence can ever be removed from our system. There were some of my classmates who have given good answers. But if our professor have picked me to answer this, my answer would be that I think the only way we can stop people from acts of violence is if people will learn how to value lives of other people instead of valuing material things. This is my answer because I think people or human beings are driven to gain power and wealth all the time. We have this desire because of means of survival. But if we give more importance to life and values, I think people would be less violent. But I don’t think it would be the complete answer or general answer for everyone.
I don’t know but as I’ve said, I really think that it is in our human nature to act aggressively against each other for different reasons. And sometimes an act of violence can also be an act to keep everyone and everything in order. In the beginning of the chapter in the book, Anne Orford emphasized force to be answer to helping other people in achieving peace and order for everyone. The force being described is the military interventions implemented by a particular organization or country. In my opinion, I think military force has been a convincing act to relieve others from suffering because it is an influential force. If you would think about it, the army or military force is a powerful factor in gaining power but it can also be used to prevent others from doing harm. For example, when Marcos implemented Martial Law during his time, the country was very peaceful. Yes, there are news about people being kidnapped or killed by his men but generally, the country was peaceful and everybody was following orders. I think because of the powerful force the military has, people are more disciplined. They give more importance to their fears, so that they don’t do anything reckless or harmful against other people. But others would say that this kind of movement would be not so essential anymore in this day of age. Due to globalization, there would be a more integrated and harmonized legal system that could be practiced for security and human rights (Orford, 2009).
As also discussed in the book, we would have to look at different perspectives in how to solve the issue of violence worldwide. Law and politics are both systems that have powerful influences over our way of living. And using these systems may help in stopping people from harming others. The first matter that is discussed is the Metaphysical account of Law; the relation between legality and legitimacy. The example given in the book was about the Kosovo intervention, the act was illegal because it did not comply with the authorized grounds but it was legitimate in a sense that it was an essential act fought for values. The reference to the universal law gives legitimacy to the act of intervention (Orford, 2009). The second account of law is the Realist; an intervention that is not concerned with universal norms. This dismisses any portrayal of the systematic nature of international order or any suggestion that international law may bring into being a political community (Orford, 2009). There is also the Decisionist account of law which claims that the primary role of the state is to protect citizens, and that the state depends for its survival upon the existence of a sovereign who can guarantee the values and law of the state (Orford, 2009). I think this account of law is somewhat related to the fact that violence is most of the time ordered by rulers. So I think this kind of account of law makes sense because leaders or rulers most of the time are the important factor in implementing rules and laws that could unite people or harm people. Lastly would be the Democratic account of law. This is about the determination of legitimacy that requires a justification from principles that are immanent to the law itself (Orford, 2009). Discussing these different accounts could help us understand better how we can come up with sufficient laws that could be essential in stopping people from harming others.
There would be an effective way and also proper way in solving the issues about harm against other people. The effective way would be the use of force because as I’ve described military force is a powerful mean of implementing laws. And the proper way would be implementing laws that would stop people from harming others by means of legal actions. But if you think about it, these two perspectives can’t be intertwined because it is somewhat difficult to come up with means that can be effective at the same time proper for everyone.
Reference:
McNeil, W., Global Politics, 2008
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Why does politics turn to violence?
Politics has been a controversial issue because most of the time it involves unconventional and inhuman practices. The most common act of violence that involves the majority of people is war. It has been an issue all throughout human existence because many people have died for and because of war. But why does politics turn to violence? What are factors that lead people to evil means in attaining power? Why does it seem that it is just the only way to solve certain issues about politics?
Just a few months ago, one of the most unbelievable acts of violence due to politics has happened here in our country, the Maguindanao Massacre. Many people have been killed; most of them are women and journalists. The accused leaders of this massacre are the Ampatuan Clan. When I found out about this heart breaking incident, I felt so much grief and at the same time confusion. It got me thinking of how someone can be so heartless and evil to do such a heinous crime. And to think the people killed were innocent people who were just doing their jobs and fighting for what they think are right. Of course everything happens for a reason but I don’t think there would be reasons enough to justify such action.
In a larger context, mass killing has been a cultural phenomenon due to different factors (Bourke). In the book, it has been described that war or mass killing happens greatly in many places, any time because it is intentional. Killing can happen anywhere, anytime because everyone it is inflicted to most people. It was also said that because of history textbooks, the real cause or intention of war is being redefined to make it a justifiable action.
As I’ve said everything happens for a reason, everyone has their own opinion and intentions of acting. Bourke in the book gave three main reasons or excuses why people kill or hurt other people. First, there is retribution, during war soldiers would kill their enemies or shoot them. They do this instead of taking their enemies as prisoners because they feel obliged to kill those that have killed their own men. The second would be due to obedience, the main excuse soldiers or army men would say that they are just obeying what they were asked to do. They feel that they are obliged to do so by their leaders to also lessen the guilt. And the final excuse would be parallel response; this means that soldiers or men would be more willing to kill someone before they are killed themselves. I think this is a natural initiative for men to inflict pain to others. As described we strive to survive and even if we have to use or take advantage of other people, we will do it just so that we can survive and live. I think people, especially those that have been tasked to inflict violence, should provide themselves with sufficient reasons for doing their actions to keep them sane and to feed their conscience.
But when you think of it, of course not anyone would do such violent actions unless they are told to by someone who has the power. The people who would declare war most of the time are politicians, the leader of the country or certain state. Bourke described that war only takes place if the leaders feel that they would benefit from such or a threat is arising and so they have to protect their country or state from it. Economically speaking, sometimes war can benefit the country. It has been discussed in class that war can enrich the economical status of the country involved. There are also declarations of war due to territories. I think this has been one of the oldest reasons for war to happen. During ancient times, it has been an essential matter to declare war against other territories to gain that territory. And of course, sometimes there would be just some evil leaders who would lead his people to war due to evil reasons or evil thinking. Lately, competing political ideologies has been one of the most popular reasons why people fight against each other. Due to differences in ideas people would go against each other just to protect or defend their own beliefs. I think this is due to the reason that people are just really stubborn and we always have this intention to prove that we are better than others and such.
As I read all these facts about reasons people give to justify their actions, I can’t help but think that violence and aggression really runs in the nature of human beings. I guess for survival and also because of the reason that we have been deceived by the true intentions of war. I think violence is sometimes the answer to political issues because people can’t just think of other ways to solve it. Maybe because throughout history it has been an idea that gives good outcomes, except of course the fact that many people suffer and die. I don’t know and I will never understand the reason why violence still occurs but I do hope that this kind of acts will lessen. People have become more modern and rational and barbaric means should be eliminated in my opinion.
Just a few months ago, one of the most unbelievable acts of violence due to politics has happened here in our country, the Maguindanao Massacre. Many people have been killed; most of them are women and journalists. The accused leaders of this massacre are the Ampatuan Clan. When I found out about this heart breaking incident, I felt so much grief and at the same time confusion. It got me thinking of how someone can be so heartless and evil to do such a heinous crime. And to think the people killed were innocent people who were just doing their jobs and fighting for what they think are right. Of course everything happens for a reason but I don’t think there would be reasons enough to justify such action.
In a larger context, mass killing has been a cultural phenomenon due to different factors (Bourke). In the book, it has been described that war or mass killing happens greatly in many places, any time because it is intentional. Killing can happen anywhere, anytime because everyone it is inflicted to most people. It was also said that because of history textbooks, the real cause or intention of war is being redefined to make it a justifiable action.
As I’ve said everything happens for a reason, everyone has their own opinion and intentions of acting. Bourke in the book gave three main reasons or excuses why people kill or hurt other people. First, there is retribution, during war soldiers would kill their enemies or shoot them. They do this instead of taking their enemies as prisoners because they feel obliged to kill those that have killed their own men. The second would be due to obedience, the main excuse soldiers or army men would say that they are just obeying what they were asked to do. They feel that they are obliged to do so by their leaders to also lessen the guilt. And the final excuse would be parallel response; this means that soldiers or men would be more willing to kill someone before they are killed themselves. I think this is a natural initiative for men to inflict pain to others. As described we strive to survive and even if we have to use or take advantage of other people, we will do it just so that we can survive and live. I think people, especially those that have been tasked to inflict violence, should provide themselves with sufficient reasons for doing their actions to keep them sane and to feed their conscience.
But when you think of it, of course not anyone would do such violent actions unless they are told to by someone who has the power. The people who would declare war most of the time are politicians, the leader of the country or certain state. Bourke described that war only takes place if the leaders feel that they would benefit from such or a threat is arising and so they have to protect their country or state from it. Economically speaking, sometimes war can benefit the country. It has been discussed in class that war can enrich the economical status of the country involved. There are also declarations of war due to territories. I think this has been one of the oldest reasons for war to happen. During ancient times, it has been an essential matter to declare war against other territories to gain that territory. And of course, sometimes there would be just some evil leaders who would lead his people to war due to evil reasons or evil thinking. Lately, competing political ideologies has been one of the most popular reasons why people fight against each other. Due to differences in ideas people would go against each other just to protect or defend their own beliefs. I think this is due to the reason that people are just really stubborn and we always have this intention to prove that we are better than others and such.
As I read all these facts about reasons people give to justify their actions, I can’t help but think that violence and aggression really runs in the nature of human beings. I guess for survival and also because of the reason that we have been deceived by the true intentions of war. I think violence is sometimes the answer to political issues because people can’t just think of other ways to solve it. Maybe because throughout history it has been an idea that gives good outcomes, except of course the fact that many people suffer and die. I don’t know and I will never understand the reason why violence still occurs but I do hope that this kind of acts will lessen. People have become more modern and rational and barbaric means should be eliminated in my opinion.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
How can we end poverty?
Wherever you are, whatever time it may be, you can see, hear, and feel poverty. It is one of aspect of our society that we’ve tried to eliminate but unfortunately, many have failed in doing so. It has been the talk of many because of its many implications in our lives. For others, it is a sign of injustice, a face of difference and a symbol of economic instability. When we say poverty, we immediately think of people who lacks in material things or the ability to live with all the necessities like food or shelter. But as I’ve read the book, I’ve realized that it has different meaning based on different factors that have caused it. There are the natural explanations, the cultural factor and also economical aspect. And by understanding these different aspects, many have taken into consideration these differences and made this as a stepping stone for creating a program that could eliminate poverty.
Due to globalization, ending poverty became an important issue because many have become aware of this phenomenon. Many have become more open to this different world from those that are living comfortably. It has also become evident that even countries that are considered rich have some part that is facing poverty. It also an important matter because in some way, the world is also divided with the implications of poverty. And I think because of the world becoming globalized, it is important to help and make all countries become developed and rich. It is visible nowadays, that powerful people are trying to lessen poverty in their own ways. They try to give money, build homes for the poor people and they even try to make use of their popularity to voice out their advocacy to the people. But even with so many attempts to diminish poverty, poverty hasn’t disappeared completely.
Of course, because of the notion that poverty is due to lack of materials and wealth, it is only practical to think of an economic solution which is economic growth. For example, here in the Philippines, because of the upcoming election many politicians main goal is to erase poverty. And their way of doing this is to commit the government to proper education, make more infrastructures and develop emergency relief. Because these three things are important aspects of the economy that can help people especially those that are poor to become attain a better life. But this is hard to achieve completely in the case of the Philippines because of the powerful people who make use of the poor for their own welfare. As said in the book, “the poor provide the laboring capacity that enables the rich to live forms of life more attentive to the compulsions of cultural globalization.” Meaning, the rich or those in power make use of the poor especially in businesses because the poor are more capable of doing hard labor.
But of course, we should also look at a different perspective. Like for example, some may say that poor people are poor because they lack the ability or the desire to do something to alleviate them from poverty. But if the environment or the economy doesn’t provide the market for the people to engage and use their skills, even if they have the capacity and want, they will still not be able to do something to improve their lives.
Even with so many resources and will to eliminate poverty, it is still an issue that’s still left unsolved. Personally, I think the main problem is that even if some are trying to come up with solutions to eradicate this issue, many are still more concern of their own power and wealth that they just try to resolve the problem in a short time but not entirely. I think it is important to remind those people especially those in power to get their values straight and try to think of others instead of their own interest. Maybe then, poverty will be completely eliminated all over the world.
Due to globalization, ending poverty became an important issue because many have become aware of this phenomenon. Many have become more open to this different world from those that are living comfortably. It has also become evident that even countries that are considered rich have some part that is facing poverty. It also an important matter because in some way, the world is also divided with the implications of poverty. And I think because of the world becoming globalized, it is important to help and make all countries become developed and rich. It is visible nowadays, that powerful people are trying to lessen poverty in their own ways. They try to give money, build homes for the poor people and they even try to make use of their popularity to voice out their advocacy to the people. But even with so many attempts to diminish poverty, poverty hasn’t disappeared completely.
Of course, because of the notion that poverty is due to lack of materials and wealth, it is only practical to think of an economic solution which is economic growth. For example, here in the Philippines, because of the upcoming election many politicians main goal is to erase poverty. And their way of doing this is to commit the government to proper education, make more infrastructures and develop emergency relief. Because these three things are important aspects of the economy that can help people especially those that are poor to become attain a better life. But this is hard to achieve completely in the case of the Philippines because of the powerful people who make use of the poor for their own welfare. As said in the book, “the poor provide the laboring capacity that enables the rich to live forms of life more attentive to the compulsions of cultural globalization.” Meaning, the rich or those in power make use of the poor especially in businesses because the poor are more capable of doing hard labor.
But of course, we should also look at a different perspective. Like for example, some may say that poor people are poor because they lack the ability or the desire to do something to alleviate them from poverty. But if the environment or the economy doesn’t provide the market for the people to engage and use their skills, even if they have the capacity and want, they will still not be able to do something to improve their lives.
Even with so many resources and will to eliminate poverty, it is still an issue that’s still left unsolved. Personally, I think the main problem is that even if some are trying to come up with solutions to eradicate this issue, many are still more concern of their own power and wealth that they just try to resolve the problem in a short time but not entirely. I think it is important to remind those people especially those in power to get their values straight and try to think of others instead of their own interest. Maybe then, poverty will be completely eliminated all over the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)