Political Disenfranchised Research Paper
Is it true to say that terrorism is a legitimate tool for the politically disenfranchised? Consider this question with reference to recent events.
Introduction:
Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. The victims are usually chosen randomly or selectively from a population. Acts of terror are often performed by political, ethnic, or religious groups who feel they have no other recourse for their needs or demands. Because terrorist groups are often disenfranchised members of a dictatorial society in which democratic rights of protest and petition are not practiced, terrorism is justified by disempowered groups of people. Therefore, in extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to …show more content…
terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause.
Body, supporting points:
1) The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy.
Being excluded from the civic process is a threat to democracy. Likewise, the practice of disenfranchisement is often unequal, leading to “racial vote dilution” and can be perceived as an unjust “collateral consequence” of a conviction.
2) We must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. Eg: Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, the Spanish Basque Separatists and the Muslims terrorist in Southern Thailand.
3) Terror to one is not terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine.
Body, points
against:
1) From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives. Eg: Suicide truck bombing in Mogadishu, Somalia killing at least 139 and at least another 93 people were wounded.
Solution:
Perhaps the Gandhian principles of nonviolence can be implemented:
1) Instead of a gun, the "weapon" is truth.
2) Instead of an enemy, one has only opponents whom you have not yet convinced of the truth, and for whom the same universal human rights must be recognized.
3) Instead of an enemy, one has only opponents whom you have not yet convinced of the truth, and for whom the same universal human rights must be recognized.
4) Instead of secrecy, information is shared as widely as possible.
5) Instead of authoritarian power, there is democratic participation ("people's power").
6) Instead of male domination, there is equality of women in all decision-making and actions.
7) Instead of exploitation, both the goal and the means is justice and human rights for all.
8) Instead of education for power through force, education for power through active nonviolence.
Conclusion:
In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.
Introduction:
Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. The victims are usually chosen randomly or selectively from a population. Acts of terror are often performed by political, ethnic, or religious groups who feel they have no other recourse for their needs or demands. Because terrorist groups are often disenfranchised members of a dictatorial society in which democratic rights of protest and petition are not practiced, terrorism is justified by disempowered groups of people. Therefore, in extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to …show more content…
terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause.
Body, supporting points:
1) The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy.
Being excluded from the civic process is a threat to democracy. Likewise, the practice of disenfranchisement is often unequal, leading to “racial vote dilution” and can be perceived as an unjust “collateral consequence” of a conviction.
2) We must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. Eg: Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, the Spanish Basque Separatists and the Muslims terrorist in Southern Thailand.
3) Terror to one is not terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine.
Body, points
against:
1) From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives. Eg: Suicide truck bombing in Mogadishu, Somalia killing at least 139 and at least another 93 people were wounded.
Solution:
Perhaps the Gandhian principles of nonviolence can be implemented:
1) Instead of a gun, the "weapon" is truth.
2) Instead of an enemy, one has only opponents whom you have not yet convinced of the truth, and for whom the same universal human rights must be recognized.
3) Instead of an enemy, one has only opponents whom you have not yet convinced of the truth, and for whom the same universal human rights must be recognized.
4) Instead of secrecy, information is shared as widely as possible.
5) Instead of authoritarian power, there is democratic participation ("people's power").
6) Instead of male domination, there is equality of women in all decision-making and actions.
7) Instead of exploitation, both the goal and the means is justice and human rights for all.
8) Instead of education for power through force, education for power through active nonviolence.
Conclusion:
In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.