The ViewHistoricism, postmodernism and political violence: the closing of the human mind

The struggle for a more democratic future electoral arrangement under the Basic Law has become increasingly confrontational and even violent. While successful political struggles anywhere are seldom unaccompanied by violence, this does not imply that violent political struggles are morally justified.

Most philosophical traditions have moral sanctions against the use of violence against fellow men, including in politics.

Hobbes and Locke advocated a social contract theory of the state by arguing that when men agreed to leave the state of nature and join civilization, it was to end or limit violence and respect the rule of law.

Henry Thoreau went to jail for one day because he refused to pay his taxes in protest against the state for constitutionally legitimising slavery, but he was not violent even though he broke the law. His idea of civil disobedience influenced Gandhi and also Martin Luther King.

All of this is not to say that the birth of liberal political democracy has been non-violent; the issue is whether the use of violence has a moral ground.

An even more important reason why violence should not be endorsed and legitimated is that the forces that overthrow an oppressive government could themselves become the new oppressor. Once the door to violence is open, it might be difficult to close. Violence often only begets more violence.