The Legitimization of Violence by the State and the Pursuit of Liberation

Introduction

Violence and its legitimization have always been central to the exercise of power and authority. The state, in its quest to maintain order and control, often legitimizes violence as a means of enforcing laws and protecting national interests. Conversely, for marginalized and oppressed groups, the legitimization of violence can become a crucial tool for liberation. The analysis that follows delves into the complex dynamics of how violence is legitimized by the state and explores the arguments and examples of how oppressed peoples have historically and contemporarily legitimized violence in their struggle for liberation. The need for discernment when contemplating the use of violence for achieving liberation is also analyzed.

State-Legitimized Violence

The state’s monopoly on violence is a fundamental aspect of its sovereignty and governance. Max Weber famously defined the state as an entity that holds the “monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” This definition underscores the state's role in legitimizing violence through institutions such as the military, police, and judicial system. This legitimization is often framed as necessary for maintaining law and order, defending the nation, and upholding justice. However, this sanctioned violence often serves to maintain existing power structures and suppress dissent.

Historically, state-legitimized violence has been employed to quell uprisings, enforce colonial rule, and maintain racial hierarchies. During the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, for example, state forces used violence against peaceful protesters, illustrating how state-sanctioned violence can perpetuate systemic oppression. Martin Luther King Jr. highlighted this paradox, stating, “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government.”

Legitimizing Violence for Liberation

For oppressed groups, the question of legitimizing violence arises as a means of resistance and self-defense against systemic violence. Frantz Fanon, a prominent theorist of anti-colonial struggle, argued that violence is a necessary response to colonial oppression. In his seminal work, "The Wretched of the Earth," Fanon posits that decolonization is inherently a violent process: “Violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.”

Similarly, Malcolm X’s advocacy for self-defense and armed resistance was rooted in the belief that nonviolent methods alone were insufficient to achieve Black liberation. Malcolm X stated, “We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us. But we are not nonviolent with anyone who is violent with us.” His stance underscored the necessity of self-defense and the legitimacy of retaliatory violence in the face of state and racially motivated aggression.

The Black Panther Party (BPP) provides a historical example of a group that legitimized violence as a means of self-defense and community protection. The BPP’s formation of armed patrols to monitor police activity and protect Black neighborhoods was a direct response to police brutality and systemic racism. Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the BPP, articulated this stance, stating, “The racist dog policemen must withdraw immediately from our communities, cease their wanton murder and brutality, and torture of Black people, or face the wrath of the armed people.”

Analyzing Historical and Contemporary Examples

The outcomes of legitimizing violence for liberation have varied, reflecting both successes and challenges. During the Algerian War of Independence, the National Liberation Front (FLN) employed guerrilla warfare against French colonial forces. Despite significant casualties and brutal reprisals, the FLN’s sustained violent resistance was instrumental in securing Algeria’s independence in 1962.

In contrast, the use of violence by some factions within the Civil Rights Movement in the United States led to a more complex set of outcomes. While armed self-defense was a necessary and justified response to racial terror, it also attracted severe repression from state forces. The FBI’s COINTELPRO program, for instance, targeted Black radical groups, using illegal surveillance and violence to disrupt their activities. This underscores the significant risks associated with legitimizing violence, as it often provokes escalated state repression.

Legitimizing Violence for Liberation Today

In contemporary contexts, legitimizing violence for liberation continues to be a contentious issue. The global Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has reignited debates about the role of violence in resistance. While BLM primarily advocates for nonviolent protest, instances of rioting and confrontation with police have sparked discussions about the legitimacy of such actions in the face of ongoing racial violence and injustice.

Angela Davis, a renowned scholar and activist, emphasizes the importance of understanding the context of violence in liberation struggles. She notes, “I am not a pacifist. I understand that sometimes you have to confront the violence of the oppressor with the violence of the oppressed.” This perspective highlights the moral and strategic complexities involved in legitimizing violence.

The Need for Discernment

Despite the historical and theoretical arguments for legitimizing violence, it is crucial to approach this issue with discernment. The use of violence can have profound and far-reaching consequences, not only for those directly involved but also for broader social and political movements. It is essential to weigh the potential benefits against the risks and ethical considerations.

Nonviolent resistance, as advocated by leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, has also demonstrated significant power in achieving social change. Nonviolence can attract broad-based support, create moral pressure, and delegitimize the use of force by the oppressor. However, as King himself recognized, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” This acknowledgment underscores the need to address the root causes of violence and the legitimacy of resistance in contexts where systemic injustice persists.

Conclusion

The legitimization of violence by the state and the pursuit of liberation through violence by oppressed groups are deeply intertwined and complex phenomena. Historical and contemporary examples illustrate that violence, when legitimized by the state, often serves to maintain power structures and suppress dissent. Conversely, for marginalized groups, legitimizing violence can be a necessary and justified response to systemic oppression and violence.

However, the decision to legitimize violence for liberation requires careful consideration and discernment. It involves evaluating the potential outcomes, ethical implications, and strategic effectiveness of violent resistance. As history shows, both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance have their place in the struggle for justice and liberation. By critically engaging with these dynamics, we can better understand the role of violence in social change and the ongoing quest for a more just and equitable world.

Justin F. Miles LCPC

~ Freedom is a long walk and liberation is ever present.