is violence justified in politics?

Is violence justified in politics?
Politics can be defined as acquiring the position of government which includes controlling the human community, making laws and developing the country. Politics has been criticized as dirty game by many professionals but a country would not be able to run without politics. If a person has chosen to become a politician, yes, people will criticize him/her, people will praise him/her but it is his/her responsibility to maintain the laws, and operate the country in any situation. There has been protest regarding politics in the past and thus nonviolence can be justified in politics to some extent.
If there is violence of human rights by the present government then protest with violence could be reasonable. If the political system of the country destroys their rights instead of protecting then there would be violence in the country. This has been proved by the Arab spring. In order to get democratic political system which could protect their human right there were mass protests against the present autocratic political system. Only because of these mass protests Egypt (one of the affected country where the human rights were violated by the present government) got end to dictatorship and gave birth to democratic system. With the introduction of democracy the light of hope was lit in the Egyptians. Therefore violence can be expected in the political system where the present government violates the rights of their own people.
Similarly, if there is massive corruption in the country and citizens are not getting their benefits and on top of that the present political government is corrupt the protest in those countries is expected. People will go and complain the government about their corrupt personnel but if the government is already corrupt then who will the people complain to? So, if the present political leaders who run the country are corrupt then protest with violence is sure in that country. We can take example of Tunisia where the street vendor immolated himself because of the corrupt political leaders. Because of the self-immolation of the street vendor there were massive violence and protest against the corrupt political leaders and dictators in the Arab nations. It can be concluded that if the political system is corrupt or it can also be interpreted as if the law makers are not maintaining the law, is misusing the nation’s wealth and is not protecting the human community, and then protests with violence in that country could be explained.
Even though there has been violence and protests in Arab nations because of lack of accountability from their political leaders it could have been solved by peace protests. In India, the anti-corruption bill was passed in the parliament because of the peace protest done by Anna Hazaare. Anna Hazaare did protest against the political leaders of India but his protests were based on non-violence. This example proves that the political system can be objected with nonviolence activities.
To sum all, in the past there has been violent political revolutions like the French revolution and in the present the popular political revolution the Arab spring. It is difficult to conduct nonviolent revolutions and nonviolent protests are difficult to be recognized by the government. If there would have been no media then the government could just ignore these peace protests. However, violent and nonviolent protests depend upon the present political situation and external factors. If the issue is really violating the rights and the political leaders are not liberal (dictatorial regime) then violent situation would take place in the country but if the political leaders are liberal (democratic) the nonviolence would be the best.
Is violence justified in politics?
Politics can be defined as acquiring the position of government which includes controlling the human community, making laws and developing the country. Politics has been criticized as dirty game by many professionals but a country would not be able to run without politics. If a person has chosen to become a politician, yes, people will criticize him/her, people will praise him/her but it is his/her responsibility to maintain the laws, and operate the country in any situation. There has been protest regarding politics in the past and thus nonviolence can be justified in politics to some extent.
If there is violence of human rights by the present government then protest with violence could be reasonable. If the political system of the country destroys their rights instead of protecting then there would be violence in the country. This has been proved by the Arab spring. In order to get democratic political system which could protect their human right there were mass protests against the present autocratic political system. Only because of these mass protests Egypt (one of the affected country where the human rights were violated by the present government) got end to dictatorship and gave birth to democratic system. With the introduction of democracy the light of hope was lit in the Egyptians. Therefore violence can be expected in the political system where the present government violates the rights of their own people.
Similarly, if there is massive corruption in the country and citizens are not getting their benefits and on top of that the present political government is corrupt the protest in those countries is expected. People will go and complain the government about their corrupt personnel but if the government is already corrupt then who will the people complain to? So, if the present political leaders who run the country are corrupt then protest with violence is sure in that country. We can take example of Tunisia where the street vendor immolated himself because of the corrupt political leaders. Because of the self-immolation of the street vendor there were massive violence and protest against the corrupt political leaders and dictators in the Arab nations. It can be concluded that if the political system is corrupt or it can also be interpreted as if the law makers are not maintaining the law, is misusing the nation’s wealth and is not protecting the human community, and then protests with violence in that country could be explained.
Even though there has been violence and protests in Arab nations because of lack of accountability from their political leaders it could have been solved by peace protests. In India, the anti-corruption bill was passed in the parliament because of the peace protest done by Anna Hazaare. Anna Hazaare did protest against the political leaders of India but his protests were based on non-violence. This example proves that the political system can be objected with nonviolence activities.
To sum all, in the past there has been violent political revolutions like the French revolution and in the present the popular political revolution the Arab spring. It is difficult to conduct nonviolent revolutions and nonviolent protests are difficult to be recognized by the government. If there would have been no media then the government could just ignore these peace protests. However, violent and nonviolent protests depend upon the present political situation and external factors. If the issue is really violating the rights and the political leaders are not liberal (dictatorial regime) then violent situation would take place in the country but if the political leaders are liberal (democratic) the nonviolence would be the best.