Political Violance Essay
Political Violence Threatening Bangladesh Introduction: Political violence is hardly a new phenomenon, however novel the public and media attention to certain of its forms makes it appear. Nor has it ever been one-sided or singular in scope: political violence has multiple forms, perpetrators, victims and purposes. It transpires alongside and interlaces with non-violent politics and multiple struggles for peace and justice; it is habitually a part of modern political life but never the whole story.
Political violence is like a festering wound, in that, without the aid of antibiotics the wound has the potential to depress the immune system and eventually overwhelm the individual, leading to death. Political violence in Bangladesh has been an integral part of Bangladeshi politics unlike the other sub-continental traditional politics. The human rights situation in Bangladesh has been worsening day by day and this is very alarming as to a significant stage the rights are being violated by the state itself.
From bureaucracy to professionals, public procurement to conducting of public examination, politicization and criminalization are going rampantly everywhere. Various institutions are objected to malfunctioning at political will causing further deterioration of institutionalization contrary to the good governance and a healthy culture. Political violence is not unique to Bangladesh. Most developing countries suffer from far more serious bouts of internal turmoil.
In these days when terrorists, insurgents and militants have replaced freedom fighters, jacqueries and anarchists among the first order of public enemies, when wars on all kinds of terror have become ubiquitous elements of everyday political life, it is worth taking a step back to consider and evaluate the nature, roots, meanings and consequences of political violence. As a researcher, I want to be conduct a research on political violence to root out it from our ‘Beautiful Bangladesh’. Background and Research Problem:
Political violence can be defined as acts carried out by individuals or groups with an explicit desire of accomplishing a particular political objective or directed at the party in power to secure political concessions or compromises that are otherwise not possible. As against the Sri Lankan and Nepalese examples, political violence in Bangladesh is not rooted in ethnicity (conflict of the Chakmas being an exception). Violence in Bangladesh has a special feature – it flows from a society that is highly politicized and increasingly intolerant.
Therefore, while independent Bangladesh has not witnessed the type of conflict and violence that Sri Lanka or Nepal are witnessing, or even what Pakistan has been going through, it increasingly has a charged and violent political environment. Even the absence of military rule and ushering of democracy has not fundamentally curbed the ability and willingness of various political parties to resort to violence in achieving their objectives. This lack of political tolerance coupled with weak democratic institutions make Bangladesh a unique case in South Asia.
Political Violence in Bangladesh still remains as a tool to gain the particular political objective and to suppress the other’s opinion since its birth as an independent country. The people of Bangladesh learned to grow and survive from the political aggression and suppression of Pakistani ruling party both military and civil. So the people of Bangladesh couldn’t but resorted to act of violence in response to free the land from suppression and oppression. But after leaving almost all the bloods formulated in Pakistani period still the ruling party of Bangladesh couldn’t rinse and clear the membrane of Pakistani dirty intolerant politics.
Since the events of March 1971, Bangladesh has seldom been free from violence. While much of the recent attention revolves around religious extremism and militancy, political violence, is a larger problem for Bangladesh. The people of newly formed country taking a sanguine view welcomed the Shaik Mujibur Rahman cheerfully. Shaik Mujibur Rahman took over the power of the war damaged country. The military whose overall image had been tainted by the brutality since March 1971, had to be reorganized and its duties defined. The military personnel’s and a part of civilian too couldn’t take that easily.
There had been created an inert agitation among the military groups. In a session that lasted no more than a few hours, on January 25, 1975, the Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament) hastily approved the Fourth Amendment. This fundamentally altered the political system and replaced the parliamentary system with the presidential system and institutionalized single-party rule in Bangladesh. Mujib who won almost all seats he contested in 1971 by amassing 97. 6 per cent of the votes, banned all political parties, and announced the formation of the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL).
The stage was thus set for a violent confrontation. The greed of remaing in power thwarting the democratic process arouses the other party to resort violence to bring back their political rights. In 80’s Ziur Rahman coming from military background as a president were killed in Chittagong on may 30 1981 , the country again brought under the rule of military dictator by Hossain Mohammad Ershad. Thus the short period of Mujib creates the stage for military rule and stages the drama of military suppression and political violence searching power.
The last military dictatorship of Hussain Mohammad Ershad was thrown away by the united political force of Bangladesh where the United BNP, Awami league and Jamayat force walked and worked together for the shake of bringing democracy back. For the first time in history Bangladesh saw the a political cohesion for bring democracy back. Interestingly the Awami league which is now has been very intolerant to Jamayat Islami Bangladesh both came together and sat together for rebuilding democracy.
But the hunger for power and cupidity brought the ruling party into political suppression as well as confrontation blaming each other for power occupying tricks. After the demos of the military power of Ershad national parliamentary election was held in 1991 under the newly installed neutral caretaker government system. Here starts again the political violence during the election period. There were 83 incidents of violence among the political parties resulting 14 deaths and 593 injuries between January and March 1991 ‘Daily Ittefuq’ reports.
A discussion of political violence in Bangladesh would refer to violent tactics employed by political parties and groups opposed to the government in power with an explicit desire to secure a political concession. It would also include protest actions that often transform into violence such as hartals, bandhs (complete cessation of public activities during a political strike) and other non-parliamentary methods adopted by various political parties. Indeed, it is the vitiating climate that enables political groups to resort to violence in order to express and achieve their political/social goals.
Social violence and religious extremism feeds into, and shapes the larger context of, political violence in Bangladesh. The struggle between activists belonging to different parties also contributes significantly to the politics of violence. Apart from hartals and other forms of mass protests, religious violence against secular targets nowadays is being carried out with an explicit political agenda and by Islamic militants. Violence against the minorities in Bangladesh, namely Chakmas and Hindus, is classified as political. Conceptual Framework:
Violence means the exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury or damage to persons or property. When violence takes place within a political community involving competing political groups against the political regime, its leaders or its policies, it can be called as political violence. In other words, political violence seeks to directly or indirectly influence decision making and power relationship in a political system. It is particularly manifest when political institutions fail to perform their roles or when political elites lose their authority and legitimacy.
It can be motivated by a desire to maintain or change the existing social, political order. Political violence inhibits the smooth functioning of democracy. In a democracy the representatives of the people are elected by popular vote. This election is uncoerced. Democracy also believes in equality which is practiced through the principle of one person one vote. All decisions are taken by a majority vote. Political violence militates against these principles of democracy and, therefore, political violence is considered undemocratic.
Politically motivated violence is commonly referred to by the terms terrorism, rebellion, war, conquest, revolution, oppression, tyranny, and many others. In general, it can be defined as committing violent actions against others with the intended purpose of effecting a change in their actions. Many groups and individuals believe that their political systems will never respond to their political demands. As a result they believe that violence is not only justified but also necessary in order to achieve their political objectives.
At other times, governments use force in order to defend their country from outside invasion or other threats of force. Another context of political violence occurs when the military or some other organized group seize control of the government in their country. Coups d’etat happen frequently in some countries, and they may involve much bloodshed but sometimes occur without serious injuries or loss of life. For example, Bangladesh has lived under military rules, and it gained independence in 1971.
Political violence can only be defined through disaggregation. The political nature of the violence we are interested in may variously centre on object, location, justification, purpose or effect. The field of the political goes well beyond the formal institutions of collective public representation and executive action (such as elections and governments, campus violence, student’s violence); it includes all arenas of social relations connected with struggles for political power, voice and rights, and that engender political subjectivities.
Political violence in Bangladesh has recently been a frequent hazard for the political stability. It destabilize the growth of democracy and political culture when the chief and crucial part of government body patronize the miscreants for the narrow party interest. To halt the growth of when a party become intolerant toward other party that always worsen the situation of political violence in Bangladesh. Awamileague who work and sat with jamaat Islami during the anti military ruler campaign in 90s people saw for the first time in history the political parties cooperation.
But violence get promoted when Awamileague and its alliance becomes intolerant to jamaat islami through blame gaming that also widens gap between Awamileague and BNP increasing the rate of political violence. To ensure a satisfactory growth in almost all sectors of development importantly for economic development political stability is very important for a country. The above mentioned recommendations shall bear significant solution toward stopping the higher rate and acuteness of political violence in Bangladesh to ensure an economically and politically sustainable Bangladesh. Objective:
The objectives of the research project are to: •Examine the factors responsible for the political violence. •Search out the actors who are responsible for the political violence. •Identify the specific actions require to spread-out the violence from politics. •Discourage the actors to making political violence and encourage them to improve the political as well as social, economical basically the overall country positions with a higher qualified living standard. Research Questions: Here I present some sample of the investigative questions, which I would be ask to the respondents to fulfill my desire research. The questions would be: )What are the factors responsible for the political violence? b)Who are (actors) responsible for the political violence? c)What actions are requiring to rooted-out the violence from politics? d)What measures should be taken by the Government to stoop it and to improve the present conditions of our country and what should our duties to make a violence free politics? Hypothesis: The study hypothesis would be as follows: The causes of political violence would be: Political culture, growing Islamic fervour in society, personalised politics coupled with weak institution building, absence of political accountability, ack of a responsible opposition, amidst growing political and economic anarchy, forms of political behaviour by the political actors, a cosmetic exercise to legitimise the ruling elite, intolerance to others ideology, activism and gains, the ruling political parties indiscriminately suppressing the opposing parties and individuals, lack of willingness of the Government, different agencies and institutions to stop it. Recommendations would be: Change the political culture with the removal of narrow political interest and mentality. Establish strong law and order institutions with the willingness of the Government.
Variables: As, variable is a measurable dimension of a concept, and all researches require the manipulation or measurement of variables because it is a quantity in which a researcher is interested and it varies in the course of the research, so here I given a sample of some variables in of my thoughts. As, there are two types of variables-Dependent Variable (depend on other variables) and Independent Variable (do not depend on other variables), here I thought the dependent variable and independent variables would be: Dependent Variable- Political Violence Independent Variables- a. political culture. b. rowing Islamic fervour in society. c. personalised politics coupled with weak institution building. d. absence of political accountability. e. lack of a responsible opposition. f. amidst growing political and economic anarchy. g. cosmetic exercise to legitimise the ruling elite. h. ruling political parties indiscriminately suppressing the opposing parties and individuals. i. lack of willingness of the Government and law and order institutions. Methodology: This section presents an overview of the methods to use in the study. Areas covered included the content analysis, interview, observation, survey. Content analysis:
We all know that content analysis method critically and objectively reviews the published or printed facts, figures, opinions, observations, generalizations in the light of its content value. The study will be involve the evaluating the past present political situations and politically violent activities of our country, to find out the causes of our violent politics and to give a meaningful suggestions to come out from it and obviously to conduct the research this method (different articles, documents, cases, news collected from newspapers)will be too much helpful to achieve the objectives set out by the researcher.
Interview: Interview is a method of two-person conversation initiated by the interviewer. As, the higher level political leaders, some public officers, bureaucrats, MPs, some leaders of ruling party and opposition parties, and some other local level political groups are also involve in it, so to take their interviews might be so essential to analyze the total political violence. And, as the general people are also involve and badly effected by it, so to take their interviews might be also effective for the research.
So to successfully conduct the research, interview method will also be used. Survey: Survey method is a process by which quantitative facts are collected. To solve the problems of political violence, to know the public opinions, to know about their suggestions, their thoughts, the use of survey method would be the most prominent method. Data Analysis: To conduct the research, it is must to collect the data through using various processes of data collection. After collecting data, data would be analyzed strategically.
Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which is applied in collecting data and analyzing numerical information’s. And here I would be used to analyze the data the most three important measurement of statistics- Median, Mode, Mean. Here I also would be used different types of Tables, Graphs and Charts (etc)-to analyze the datasheets – those would be help to achieve the research findings. Theoretical Framework: I will be guided most generally by the ‘Motivation Theory’. There are a number of different views as to what motivates the actors to stop the political violence.
Here I would like to use a combine theoretical view to guide myself from the point of view of both –Taylor, Mayo and Herzberg theories. Taylor Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856 – 1917) put forward the idea that actors are motivated mainly by economically. The argued to follow it would be: Sometimes the lower/ local level party leaders do not naturally enjoy and so need close supervision and control. Therefore the top political leaders should then be motivated them appropriately, so they can involve themselves effectively. Sometimes they involve with violence for the crises of finance.
So the top political leaders should initiatives to enable them in order to economically, socially, culturally, physically, mentally to rising there living standard and status, which would be encourage them to dedicated themselves for politics. Mayo Elton Mayo (1880 – 1949) believed that actors are not just concerned with money but could be better motivated by having their social needs met. From this Mayo identified some factors that would be motivated them; Better communication between top level political leaders and party workers and supporters. Working in groups or teams. Herzberg
Frederick Herzberg, had close links with Maslow and believed in a two-factor theory of motivation. He argued that there were certain factors that would directly motivate the people to politics (Motivators—Status, opportunity for advancement, gaining recognition, responsibility, sense of personal achievement ; personal growth). However there were also factors that would de-motivate the people if not present but would not in themselves actually motivate (Hygiene factors –Political parties’ policy and administration, quality of supervision, quality of inter-personal relations, feelings of secure ness).
Limitations: To conduct the research, some limitations might be face on the forthcoming future. The research limitations would be as follows: ?Documents might contain information related to a small proportion of people and so might not be representative. ?Documents containing the information to be analyzed might not be complete and the information biased and unreliable. ?Feasible success of the research depends on the willingness and cooperation of the respondents, if they might not be in favour, then it could be create problems. To find out the causes of the past events or activities, might be difficult as it could not be observe. ?Misleading information and prejudices of the interviewees. ?Constrains of –finance, social, culture and time might be effect. ?To get the appointment or to take the interview of the higher level officers (MPs, bureaucrats) and to observe the violent situations might be difficult. ?To get the sufficient documents might be tough. In Bangladesh the roots of the political violence is basically intolerance to others ideology, activism and gains.
Recently situation political violence has aggravated been from the village to urban area at a same motion where the situation devastatingly ruined in higher education institutions where the student wings of political parties indiscriminately suppressing the opposing parties and individuals. Though Political Violence in Bangladesh is in dire condition, a cure for it is still possible if the Government, International Community, Donor Agencies and countries, National and International Human Rights Commissions and political parties takes the proper initiatives to cease it.