State Repression Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

State repression represents the use of coercive power upon social groups and individuals by state institutions in a given territory. More specifically, it denotes policies of modern states and regimes to forcefully integrate, assimilate, or eliminate ethnically, religiously, or ideologically distinct groups engaged in resisting or contesting existing political orders. State repression involves a relationship of authority between state institutions and those subject to their rule, either within a nation-state or an imperial/colonial order. It entails organized violence on the part of the state through its own institutions or nonstate agents targeting specific groups and individuals.

Historical Evolution Of State Repression

State repression has been associated with the historical process of state-building, nation-building, and regime formation associated with modernity. These processes helped the institutionalization of state power and its targeting of organizations and institutions posing real or imaginary threats to the political order. As the capacity of states to act and deploy resources advanced during modernity, state repression engendered a severely asymmetric relationship between states and their contenders. The historical targets of state repression were initially nobility and local authorities resisting centralized rule within the state and those social groups (peasantry, workers, ethnic or religious groups) who were resisting specific economic and political orders. State repression, at different scales and using different instruments, is associated historically both with democracies and dictatorships. It became more visible and extensive in the latter, but it was not absent from democracies either. Democratic regimes have institutionalized rules that limit the use of government violence against individuals and groups. Despite the existence of these rules, in fragmented or unequal societies, authorities commonly use violence to preserve order. In most national states, social relations are pacified even though in many cases organized opposition still exists.

Comparing State Repression

State repression is a less emphasized historical process, much of the attention in social sciences being directed toward the building and maintenance of legitimacy and consensus around political order and toward the existence and success of protest and various revolutionary movements. Two main approaches emerge as dominant in its study: The first tends to associate state repression with particular dysfunctional regimes and socioeconomic structures and relations, heralding repression as a modern but illegitimate state behavior, while the second associates repression with the governing process across all types of states and regimes, including democratic ones, depicting repression as a neutral instrument to be used by state elites.

Ted Gurr (1986) shows that the reasons for state elites to engage in state repression depend largely on existing political cultures and traditions but also on structural characteristics of the societies and international context. If the societies are fragmented and experience shortages of resources, there is a significant potential for contestation and, subsequently, for state repression. State repression is especially violent against marginal groups that are economically and politically deprived. In countries where states are centralized and powerful in relation to society, repression is a particularly common policy phenomenon. If the societies are deeply segmented and the political institutions are weak, then the state tends to be more violent and aimed at physical destruction rather than submission or cooption. If one state is either protected or ignored by powerful actors in international politics, it is more likely to use repressive policies.

As a common modern phenomenon, state repression refers to a wide spectrum of state actions in very diverse temporal and geographical contexts. State repression can be compared by analyzing its intentions, agents, and instruments.

The intentions behind state repression significantly differ across time and space. The state can attempt to coerce the leaders of distinct groups into accepting the political order, thus eliminating its radical or armed sections, as in the Basque, Irish, and black movement in United States cases. It also can try blocking access to power by repressing distinct majorities, as is the case of South African black movements (1948–1994), or by eliminating ideologically opposed insurgencies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In other cases, the state can aim at physical elimination of a particular group, more commonly known as genocide, as it was with the case of the extermination of the Jewish population during Nazi rule in Germany and occupation of Europe (1938–1945) or the elimination of Tutsi ethnics by the politically dominant Hutu group (1994) in central Africa. In combating separatist movements, the aim of the repression is a combination of physical elimination and group submission, as in the former Yugoslavia (Bosnian war and the repression of ethnic Albanians). Ideologically based state repression also can be aimed at elimination of specific social groups, as in Cambodian repression of urban and bourgeois elite (1975–1979). Imperial or colonial repression is also violent and tends to share both of the above aims. This is exemplified by the case Turkish repression of ethnic Armenian (1914–1918) or the French repression of independence movements in Algeria (1954–1962) and Cameroon (1955–1960). In the British dominions that eventually became independent, the indigenous populations were constantly repressed to the extent that they were threatened to the point of near extinction, most notably in North America and South Africa.

State repression can be carried on by a multitude of actors. In the majority of cases, state institutions (army, police, and intelligence services) are directly involved in organizing the violence. However, in numerous instances violence is produced by organizations and groups (militias, paramilitaries, vigilantes) sponsored, protected, or tolerated by the states’ institutions. These groups and organizations usually share similar ethnic, religious, and ideological background with the ruling class and have convergent economic and political interests. The type of institutions and agents involved in repression also depend on the type of contention a state has to face. Historically, states tended to replace armies with police and intelligence organizations and state institutions with nonstate actors. Yet examples of army involvement and army-led repression are still present, as in Myanmar (2007). Communist regimes developed extensive intelligence organizations directly under the control of top political leadership whose role was to ensure the lack of opposition in society and ideological conformity in the state and party apparatus. The several Soviet purges during the rule of Joseph Stalin would not have been possible without perfectly organized and loyal secret police. The rising engagement of nonstate actors in carrying out state repression is explained by the state and its regime’s attempt to avoid responsibility and blame for their policies. In Rwanda much of the violence against Tutsis was carried on by Hutu militias informally supported by the regime. In Argentina and other Latin American states, right-wing organizations carried out most of the violent actions against opposition with the protection of the state institutions.

State repression is carried through a multitude of strategies ranging from surveillance and intimidation to exile, imprisonment, and assassination. In the case of collective protest and armed resistance, states use military technology and tactics against contending groups. Other methods include forced displacement, detention, and labor and collective punishment missions (death squads). In genocide situations, the states use starvation and collective elimination (death camps) against targeted groups. In the majority of cases, the state uses a mixture of methods. One characteristic of state repression is the asymmetry of power and resources, between the contenders. The states have vast institutions and resources whereas the opposition groups tend to lack the organizational, economic, and military capacity to resist them. This asymmetry explains the high number of victims of state repression, which in many cases is carried on without any restrictions or organized opposition. The asymmetry of resources is most evident in the examples of state repression provided by Germany in Europe (1938–1945) or by the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish population through the use of chemical weapons (1990).

State repression is a recurrent process in modern politics, often associated with major regime changes and economic crises. All states and regimes lacking legitimacy are faced with the overpowering temptation to choose this strategy instead of engaging in complicated and costly political and economic reforms. State repression can occur also in democracies, especially when the state is supported by a majority and used against a minority. The counterterrorist policy of both authoritarian and democratic regimes show that the latter can use disproportionately violent means against individuals and groups. Thus, the potential for elites to use the state institutions and their resources to create and maintain particular political and economic orders in a coercive and violent manner remain high.

Bibliography:

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, 1951.
Davenport, Christian. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Goldstein, Robert J. Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to the Present. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1978.
Political Repression in 19th Century Europe. London: Croom Helm, 1983.
Gurr,Ted R. “The Political Origins of State Violence and Terror: A Theoretical Analysis.” In Government Violence and Repression: An Agenda for Research, edited by Michael Stohl and George A. López, 45–73. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1986.
Mann, Michael. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Stohl, Michael, and George A. López. Government Violence and Repression: An Agenda for Research. New York: Greenwood, 1986.
The State as Terrorist:The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1984.
Tilly, Charles. Coercion, Capital, and European States, A.D. 990–1992. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1990.Z

This example State Repression Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.