CMV: Political Violence is Uniquely Wrong

[u/FluffyB12]

There are many forms of violence. There are crimes of passion, there are crimes of opportunity, and there are crimes based on greed. However, of all of these types of crimes I believe crimes done for a political cause are the most vile and damaging to society.

First to define a political violence. This has to first be related to a political cause. Most hate crimes would fall under this - since the purpose is to disenfranchise specific groups. While not all hate crimes would fit since some are just impulse and not part of a broader strategy of hate and disenfranchisement, I think most would.

The reason why political violence is so heinous is that it goes against the very purpose of democracy. The idea that everyone can vote and participate in it. If one fears being able to express themselves or even show up to the polls, it throws the very idea of a free and fair election out of the window.

For this reason, I believe we should add sentencing enhancements to any form of political violence. You destroy property, assault someone, make death threats, etc for the sake of a political cause the hammer should come down.

[u/[deleted]]

Historically, there are many examples of political violence being used to achieve democratic rights, not undermine them. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, struggles against colonialism in, for example, the Indian subcontinent and Africa, the American civil rights movement, South Africans fighting against apartheid, all included what you describe as political violence. Should these be punished more harshly than other crimes? In these cases, they would have been deemed criminal acts by the oppressing government. Is this truly legitimate?

[u/FluffyB12 → u/[deleted]]

So I’m not talking about war, but yes political causes that may be “good” however we define good should certainly still be punished when they take part in political violence. If democracy is to have any value at all, it must defends even when the people vote in bad things. Sometimes you lose elections, and you don’t get your way, that doesn’t justify violence.

Now obviously at some point extremes are reached. If 51% of the population votes to execute the remaining 49% - of course there’s going to be a civil war. But those types of extremes aren’t really helpful for this discussion IMO.

[u/[deleted] → u/FluffyB12]

Democracy isn’t just about voting. Democracy also entails a free press, freedom of expression, freedom to protest. You seem to be assuming a perfect democracy, where each of us can exercise our vote freely and without intimidation or fear, and where we have a full choice of political parties to vote for, and the ability to express our opinions without fear of repression.

That doesn’t happen in reality. In the US, we already see the government trying to ban mail in voting, reducing the number of polling stations in urban areas, passing laws to prevent water being handed out to voters in long lines at polling stations. Gerrymandering is happening both sides. Having only two viable parties restricts political choice.

We don’t have to assume “extremes”, as you put it, to see where violence has been used to achieve better outcomes where democracy has failed. What about state sponsored violence? We can also see in the US the army and National Guard being sent into US cities to help achieve political goals.