Any political philosophy has to deal with the issue of violence and be able to explain its current forms, as well as the institutions and natural patterns which cause and inflame it. Hobbes wrote Leviathan partly in a response to the constant civil warring in England. Many of his points of unitary sovereignty are related to those events (a kingdom divided cannot stand). Republicanism is a technology for dispersing sovereignty into the people and restricting state violence as the state has a habit of seeing any violence what-so-ever as a threat to its monopoly on force; which then produces such things as sedition laws which are not intended to end or deal with the violence, but prop up the current political order.
There is also the issue of states of emergency which are also used in a similar manner to sedition laws. An overwhelming threat to the states monopoly on force is pointed out, and the executive moves into a state where it adopts much of the legislative and judicial functions, if only by selectively applying the force of law. This, along with sedition, can be recognised as executive tyranny - which is a form of state violence.
More recently we have seen the rise of disruptive violence which piggybacks the integrated nature of globalisation and modern communications systems. While there effect still largely remains local, such as in Iraq, small groups have the ability to paralyse states. The wider groups which conduct this form of violence often exist as a state within a state and only paralyse the state with attacks when it is in their political interest to do so.
Hezbollah and Hamas are good example of this as both supply many of the normal nation-state welfare to citizenry where the state is not able to reach. This makes a natural political consistency, yet Hezbollah operates without the overhead of liberal democracy and the state bureaucracy. This makes it hard for nation-states to compete and extend their monopoly on force as the nation-state gets most of its legitimacy from its ability to distribute welfare to special interests - especially electoral interests.
We have seen throughout history the spontaneous rise of public spaces which minimise violence. A good example if the Gaullish towns of Roman times. They were all located on the top of hills. This is because the Gauls were a decentralised people who warred between tribes, rather than states. The Romans were heavily centralised and once they conquered a region they established their towns and forts near lines of communication. Which is in the valleys by the roads and rivers. The towns of the Gauls moved down into the valleys as that was where the trade was and the violence of the public space had moved under Roman rule to predominantly the judicial system and road banditry.
Another example is the closed in mall. Though North America required some way to facilitate year round shopping during heavy winters, and the ubiquitous nature of the motor car, combined to make malls possible; it is a re-arranging of the public space. Since a mall operator has vested interest in keeping their renters happy, and the renters want consumers to feel safe and secure, malls now have full time security staff dedicated to the mall's environment. Police, due to the breadth of their responsibilities, cannot be so focused, certainly not to the requirements of the mall owner, store operators and consumers in the space.
From Iraq,
this comment
gives the appearance that jersey barriers are being used to make it difficult for car bombers to come into crowded areas:
"That's part of the concrete caterpillar," Petraeus said, pointing out a barrier going up in a neighborhood in west Baghdad. "That market was shut completely down when I took command -- now it has 200 shops," he said.So not all responses to violence require state intervention, it may be as simple as neutering the worst effects of violence by re-ordering public spaces. It could be argued that the British deployment of cameras throughout London is part of this re-ordering, but a republican system must seek maximum liberty and minimise the intrusion of the state, perpetual and constant surveillance is repugnant, as it is guaranteed that eventually the state will use the capability for political, not judicial, purposes. Liberal democracy is good in removing the thirst for absolute rule that any dynastic political system has. Representative government replaces violence and civil war with pluralistic contention and competition. The greater the political competition, the healthier a liberal political system is. Which is another reason why a state of emergency is damaging, as it places effective unitary control of the branches of government in the executive, making the political non-liberal and unrepublican. In a state of emergency the system is not a liberal democracy even if it has the appearance of being one. But what of civil violence, which has political goals which are mainly to destabilise the state and force over-lapping sovereignty. Like what we see in Iraq where there is a mish-mash of militia, local government, central government, the US military and warlords fighting it out to see who can both paralyse and supply civil services. The fight is over who has the greatest stability or security to supply essential services for modern life, and hence modern economic life, such as water, electricity and access to the economic marketplace. Several of the groups involved, in a similar manner to Hezbollah, have no interest in adopting the trappings of state and the inherent overhead of governance. Their goal is to destabilise so that nation-state force cannot reach into their local fiefdom, effectively allowing them to operate without state interference. What response does Australian Republicanism have to that? Central to republicanism is the power of decentralisation and local innovation. Solutions to group that are perpetuating violence without care for governing may be simple re-orderings of the local public space. These are not solutions that can come through a centralised government who order universal edicts without care for local conditions. The political structure needs to be ordered such that localities can be invigorated to supply their own civil solutions to violence within the bounds of liberal democracy - this requires local consensus - not central consensus. This also means that the rate determining step for innovation is at the lowest levels, not the national one. There is a lesson here for the anti-federalism that is being practiced in Australia where more and more authority (and revenue) is in Canberra. This is a sign of weakness should violence in Australia become similar to what is being practised in the Middle East. The other aspect is that this is a civil violence issue, not a military one. While nation-states exist and the potential for expansion and state aggression are real, then a strong military will be required for defence. However their role must be focused on the destruction of a rival state's ability to make war and project force. Not the suppression of local civil violence. The Iraqi violence is best served by local police; who know the locality, have a vested interest in the locality and community as well as its stability, and also have a communal attachment to the area. The military is too blunt a solution in such an environment and ineffective. cam
