Monopoly over the Legitimate Use of Force vs Terrorism free essay sample

If states already exercise a monopoly over the legitimate use of force, why do they employ the tactics of terrorism? Introduction Max Weber, German sociologist who profoundly influenced social theory and political economy, contributed immensely to the notion of the state as a political organization, where he argues that the legitimate use of force successfully rests in the hands of its administrative staff. (Weber, 1922; cited in Holton Turner, 1989). Many claim, however, that there is a need to clarify a variety of possible misunderstandings that may derive from this definition.For instance, Wimmer (2003) presents a range of arguments in this direction, focusing on the pervasive character of violence within a social context and the ambivalent notion that the state successfully holds the monopolization of legitimate violence or use of force. After all, the state’s little power over certain criminalities and the use of violence speaks for itself. The lack of control over ownership of arms and other uncountable means of exercising violence contributes to the continuous – and impossible to supress presence of the illegitimate use of force by non-state actors. We will write a custom essay sample on Monopoly over the Legitimate Use of Force vs Terrorism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Therefore, the state’s control over force refers solely to the legitimate form of force. As a result, the success of such monopoly is rather imprecise: are states effective in combating criminality? To what extent their legitimate use of force prevent illegitimate violence under their penal law? For sure it does not prevent all forms of violence, and its efficacy depends very much on the level of such violence in societies – high levels of homicide, damage of property or even some form of ‘private armies’ such as guerrillas and mafias. Wimmer (2003) refers to a range of examples to support this: Columbia’s unsuccessful claim on the monopoly of violence; many African countries that ignore a large number of illustrations of violence and even Central Asia can be challenged in its ‘success’ over the monopoly of legitimate use of violence. Adopting other perspectives, and having in account the end of the Cold War, it is argued that the representation of states has suffered a shift from their actual governments to certain private entities.Even though non-state actors of violence defy the states authority and monopoly of force – such as rebels, insurgents, terrorists, etc. – the sources of security have had a tendency to be privatized in the recent years. Public authorities’ transformation and reduction of economic resources may be behind such shift, but the truth is that states have been focusing much more in international engagement rather than internal tasks, and the budgets ava ilable are directed to other costs such as technological demands rather than territorial defence.The private sector is then the alternative to ‘fill in the gaps’: increasing number of companies that provide active security and defence services; very importantly, the business of make and trade of conventional weapons and even scientific and technological private sector laboratories. This creates great dilemmas on power-sharing and responsibility between private and public sectors, and leaves the state with little command over defence issues, the industries the possible hazards of the products – for example the current case of nanotechnology (Bailes, Schneckener Wulf, 2007). The so called ‘New Threats’, particularly modern terrorism, has beneficiated considerably from more obscure parts of private economic identities, as Bailes, Schneckener Wulf (2007) further explore. Crime, smuggling and corruption assume different proportions when confined to a much more spread trading circle than the earlier direct trading between states; and when industries such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other type of high danger materials are at stake, terrorist organizations can acquire enormous sources of machinery.Furthermore, the issue of fast propagation of information through privately managed internet also brings issues: terrorists can easily acknowledge and share ways of creating weapons from substances that are legally and easily acquired on public markets. Apart from these accounts of monopoly over the legitimate use of force, it is important to analyse how the different states act in the pursuit of its owenership, indicating th e ups and downs of their strategies.On the other hand, studying traditional theories behind state terror and state-sponsored terrorism is essential to conclude what is behind the choice of states in the use of tactics of terrorism, regardless of their historical background and propensity for collapse. At later stages, stereotypes around the relation between democracies and terrorist tactics will be critically analysed, while justifying ideas of power thirst and easy/cheap access to goods even by the state.World Wide States and their Monopoly over the Legitimization of Violence Throtha (1995, cited in Wimmer, 2003) strongly believes that the monopoly over the legitimization of violence is in crisis within an international context. As suggested before, regions such as Africa struggle to contain illegitimate force, and its consequences vary from dramatic deterioration of postcolonial states, and more often than not the actual breakdown of the state and its central authorities.In Latin America, the concerns of increasing levels of violence are also evident, and have been for a long time. Such concerns can be directly linked with the continuous political instability of the area and its repeatedly turn-over of governments – the so called Caudilismo for instance has always been a source of contestations, as private armies and guerrillas assume certain empowered positions under the instruction of authoritarian leaders.This type of rule in the Latin communities in America has been brought since as early as the 19th century, where the concept of State was not yet formed or implemented; nevertheless, few changes have been made to it in the contemporary world, which will obviously bring certain problems: the stat es’ role within a society needs to accompany the growth and development of the same, shaping its rules and justice to fit in new possible threats and maintain the balance.The lack of such adjustments can be demonstrated in a number of consequences that derived from it, for example, the immense growth of metropolitan areas created a type of estates ‘favelas’ -, where the state and authorities have little or no power due to the control of certain dominant leaders over poorer communities through high rates of criminality. The notion of legitimate use of force by the state in the Latin American countries became then very distorted due to the violence it had to deal with, and military/police units are regarded as cruel, brutal, corrupt and a source of insecurity (Wimmer 2003).Looking at the Former Soviet Union, the major problems rely on the privatization and criminalization of the economy, issue that has been explored above. The presence of corruption, crime, illegal international trading of arms and drugs, etc. is suggested as an evident characteristic of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), in the World Development Report of 1997 by World Bank. Other problems rely, again, on the respect of law by the authorities, police or army, who do not get regular salaries, and therefore pursue other resources.Tax evasion and money laundering is common and feeds the use or threat of violence. Once again, the notion of political stability continues to be a blurry concept under the light of the mentioned facts – paying attention to more particular cases, this can be widely noticed for instance in Afghanistan, with the much contested Taliban regime. The fragmentation of Afghanistan’s state hits such high levels that its monopoly over the legitimate use of force is completely inexistent.