The issue of political violence is an important subject within politics across the globe. We face political violence within our own country, such as police brutality. North Korea has had history of being victim to political violence while on the other hand Iceland has very low violence levels at all. I will be exploring why North Korea struggles with political violence and how it affects political freedom and general equality within the state in comparison to Iceland. Iceland has historically and statistically shown to be an equality driven state that allows its citizens the rights to basic freedoms. Political violence can be defined and classified through various ways. Political violence is not limited to just violence from the state upon
…show more content…
The greatest definition for political violence is any violent act that, “[...]becomes a contest between opposing political factions as to whose acts of violence are to be defined as "political" and whose are not (and remain subject to ordinary criminal sanction). (Political Violence and Gender during Times of Transition)” ( Aoláin, 2006). This violence is exhibited in an assortment of ways. Actions such as a civil war can be classified as political violence because these wars are started on the basis of changing policy or an uprise for an oppressed or angered proportion of the population. In addition to civil wars, terrorist acts can be considered acts of political violence when their overall purpose is to cause change within the political structure or to instill fear amongst the population. Political violence can be grouped into four different types: structural, repressive, reactive, and combative. Structural political violence is when, more than likely, the state is restricting supplies to the citizens within the state and/ or restricting political powers within the state. Repressive is when, usually the State, target groups because of their religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, and so on. This can lead to harassment of citizens, …show more content…
While on one hand you have North Korea, the totalitarian state with Kim Jong Un as their “supreme leader” and a lack of political freedom. You also have Iceland, a state that allows for political freedom and equality, with Guðni Th. Jóhannesson as president and Bjarni Benediktsson as prime minister. Primarily, North Korea struggles with political violence and it revolves around the lack of equality and political freedom amongst their nation. It is evident that Iceland does not oppress their citizens and actually allows them a very great deal of mobilization. The question remains, what does this have to do with political violence? Well, if a state is allowed their political freedoms then they will not feel oppressed and therefore will not look to rebel or perform in any “anti state activities or express any dissent” with the state. Another potential contributing factor to the political violence could be that North Korea is a totalitarian government which has a single party that has remained with the same family for the past 3 generations. Of course when in power for so long, there will be some who do not agree with a leader’s ideas for the nation. It is my belief that the North Korean government attempts to silence all freedoms and opposition to eradicate the possibility of an undermining of the “Kim regime.” North Korea’s use of political violence helps
The greatest definition for political violence is any violent act that, “[...]becomes a contest between opposing political factions as to whose acts of violence are to be defined as "political" and whose are not (and remain subject to ordinary criminal sanction). (Political Violence and Gender during Times of Transition)” ( Aoláin, 2006). This violence is exhibited in an assortment of ways. Actions such as a civil war can be classified as political violence because these wars are started on the basis of changing policy or an uprise for an oppressed or angered proportion of the population. In addition to civil wars, terrorist acts can be considered acts of political violence when their overall purpose is to cause change within the political structure or to instill fear amongst the population. Political violence can be grouped into four different types: structural, repressive, reactive, and combative. Structural political violence is when, more than likely, the state is restricting supplies to the citizens within the state and/ or restricting political powers within the state. Repressive is when, usually the State, target groups because of their religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, and so on. This can lead to harassment of citizens, …show more content…
While on one hand you have North Korea, the totalitarian state with Kim Jong Un as their “supreme leader” and a lack of political freedom. You also have Iceland, a state that allows for political freedom and equality, with Guðni Th. Jóhannesson as president and Bjarni Benediktsson as prime minister. Primarily, North Korea struggles with political violence and it revolves around the lack of equality and political freedom amongst their nation. It is evident that Iceland does not oppress their citizens and actually allows them a very great deal of mobilization. The question remains, what does this have to do with political violence? Well, if a state is allowed their political freedoms then they will not feel oppressed and therefore will not look to rebel or perform in any “anti state activities or express any dissent” with the state. Another potential contributing factor to the political violence could be that North Korea is a totalitarian government which has a single party that has remained with the same family for the past 3 generations. Of course when in power for so long, there will be some who do not agree with a leader’s ideas for the nation. It is my belief that the North Korean government attempts to silence all freedoms and opposition to eradicate the possibility of an undermining of the “Kim regime.” North Korea’s use of political violence helps