Over the past few years there has been a worrying increase of political violence in, arguably, two of the most powerful nations in the world – America and the United Kingdom. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the concept of politically motivated violence is nothing new. Throughout history there have been instances of people taking to the streets to fight for their rights and get their government to pay attention to them. For example, following Martin Luther King’s assassination in April 1968, there were at least 137 violent protests across America as people were, understandably, outraged and distraught at losing one of the key members of the Civil Rights Movement. Having said that, what differs between the political violence of the 60s and 70s and the violence of today is there are no rights being fought for in 2024. Ironically, despite it being more than 50 years after the civil rights movement, today most violence is spearheaded by right-wing militants who are taking to the streets in the hope of taking rights away from marginalised groups.
In America this was most prominently demonstrated by the January 6th insurrection on Capitol Hill in 2021, which saw thousands, if not tens of thousands, of the Trump faithful storm the seat of the U.S. Government at the behest of their dear leader, who wanted to discredit Joe Biden’s victory over him in the 2020 race to the White House. The fact that so many people took Trump’s directive and showed up at the Capitol within mere hours of Trump tweeting his instructions demonstrates their willingness to engage in violence en masse. Rather than respecting democracy and taking the loss as a sign of public opinion turning against Trump, Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters decided to resort to rioting and threatening then-VP Mike Pence’s life. Not to mention, if they got their way, they would have essentially created an authoritarian state which pays no heed to the will of the people. The result? Trump is currently under criminal investigation and hundreds of rioters have been charged for their involvement in the insurrection.
The UK has just experienced far-right riots which have also led to criminal charges being filed. On July 29th 2024 it was reported that three young girls had been stabbed to death during their Taylor Swift themed dance class. Despite media outlets confirming that ‘the motive behind the incident was unclear.’ a rumour started spreading around social media that the stabbings were perpetrated by ‘a Muslim asylum seeker’. This provoked anti-immigration riots across the nation which lasted for over a week. Effectively, social media was used to spread a message of hatred that caused real damage and pain to thousands of families across the country as ‘white rioters attacked hotels housing asylum seekers, mosques and police officers as well as smashing and looting shops’ and left those affected to pick up the pieces. In the end, these horrific actions came to an end due to anti-riot protestors making their voices heard in tandem with the Government threatening to imprison rioters should they choose to continue causing destruction and chaos.
There are some key differences and similarities in these two instances which reveal a lot about the nature of political violence. In terms of differences, the threat to POC communities in London was much more prolonged than the few hours during which rioters took to Capitol Hill which really highlights the racism still inherent within the UK governmental system as well as society at large. Although Trump supporters are clearly not fans of immigrants – the January 6th riot was never specifically focused on that issue. Instead, the insurrection showcased the growing lack of faith in the American political system.
Putting aside the diverging motivations behind these riots, we can see the power of social media in disseminating a message and instigating action as well as the ways that misuse of said power can quickly become dangerous. Equally, the fact that both riots were able to be suppressed and essentially eradicated goes to show that people aiming to discriminate against others, or delegitimize the state are a loud minority who must be taught the consequences of their actions.
So, bringing it back to the question at hand – in my opinion, political violence is never the ‘answer’, so to speak. It is something which must be carefully considered and only used as a last resort. Furthermore, the necessity of political violence is contingent on the motivations behind said violence, the foundations of the group fighting and whether their argument has validity beyond the violence, among other things. Do not get me wrong, I wholeheartedly believe that the recent far-right riots were entirely reprehensible, in addition to being founded on pure fabrications.
I wish I could then go on to say that every act of political violence is completely avoidable and when provoked, those fighting for their rights should all simply put down their weapons and kill bigots with kindness, but the truth of the matter is that, as Professor Gwilym David Blunt puts it, ‘denying the right to resistance poses a far greater threat to a decent society than embracing it.’ There are undoubtedly moments when people have no choice but to use force to be heard, as evidenced by the civil rights protests mentioned at the beginning of this piece. This does not mean that acts of violence should in any way be condoned or explained away, but rather that political violence is a complex issue that cannot always be judged solely based on morality.
Image: Flickr/Tyler Merbler
No image changes made.
Comentários