#24 Monopoly of Violence - by Sonal Kuruvilla
I use a bike for all of my local travels. On most of these short trips, and sometimes long ones, I travel solo. So, for the longest time, I have only owned one helmet. On rare occasions, when I have someone with me, the pillion has to travel without a helmet. But when I have a pillion, I am extra careful at the turns, just to make sure the police are not waiting to catch people travelling without helmets. But the Kerala government has come up with a curveball recently: AI cameras. God, I hate those things! Now, every time I travel with a pillion, I have to be on the lookout for cameras too. (Buying a helmet is way easier, I know. But dragging myself to the helmet shop is really hard! I hope at least a few of you can empathize!)
But why am I so afraid? Who am I afraid of? After all, it's my bike, my life, and my money!
The simple answer is: I am afraid of the fine that the police or the AI cameras might charge me. What if I don't pay? If I don't pay, the fine might increase. What if I still don't pay? I guess I may be summoned to court. What if I don't show up? Now we are talking! If I don't show up, the state, through its personnel, aka police dudes, will unleash violence on me. They might probably come to my house, drag me out, and put me in a cell. That is what I am afraid of.
Let's admit it; we are all afraid of this 'daddy state.' That is why we all obey traffic rules, pay taxes, and maintain peace—or at least try to. We don't want the state to get angry. But it is not just when we disobey or harm the state that it gets violent. It can get violent even when we harm someone else. If I break the windows of my friend's apartment, it is not just a feud between me and him. The state comes to the scene and settles the case between us, and most of us comply because we don't want the state to get violent. My friend is not allowed to get violent on me, even though it was his windows that I broke. If my friend gets violent and breaks my legs, I'm not supposed to retaliate, even though it was my legs that were broken. The state is the only actor allowed to use violence. It is as if the state has a monopoly on violence.
In political science, the state monopoly on violence is a very important concept. It signifies that the state possesses exclusive authority over the legitimate use of physical force within a specific territory. Essentially, the state is considered the sole entity with the right to maintain law and order, enforce laws, and utilize force when necessary. States create conditions where nobody is permitted to engage in violence, while the state retains the ability to inflict violence.
Why does the state need this monopoly, you might ask? In simple terms, the state uses the threat of violence to secure obedience regarding taxation and behaviour. Thomas Hobbes, in his classic work, Leviathan, articulates this perspective:
"For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all."
Without the fear of the sword, all promises, laws, and regulations become ineffectual. So in theory, all of us have surrendered our agency to wield the sword to this entity called the state, trusting that the state will act wisely. This concept is central to the idea of the social contract (a topic for later).
Now, the state is comprised of human beings - like the elected ones we have in a democracy. What stops them from doing whatever they want with this incredible power to use violence? Well, the early political scientists were also worried of this. So they came up with the idea of the rule of law - a set of rules the state needs to follow while exercising its monopoly over violence. In other words, the state can't use violence whenever they want; it has to adhere to certain limits and directions. However, when the checks and balances surrounding the state are imperfect, state violence can be applied in unjust ways. This begs the question: should we be fundamentally suspicious of the state or be trusting of it? It's worth pondering, and I'll reserve my opinion on this for later.
For now, let us assume that the checks and balances surrounding a state are nearly perfect. The justice system is efficient, the policing of citizens is not discriminatory, and the laws and rules are followed by the state machinery. Even then, we have a problem!
This is the problem: since the state has a monopoly on violence, coercion is at its heart. In other words, there is no action that the state can undertake that doesn't have an element of violence (or the threat of violence) in it. Coercion of any kind hinders human freedoms and doesn't bode well for society. When human beings are free and untethered, their ingenuity brings forth good and prosperity for all. But when they are coerced, even if the intentions are pure, it creates unintended consequences that are not always pleasant. Hence, all state action involves an element of violence/coercion; coercion curtails human freedoms; this slows down progress.
For example, all state spending is done through taxes. Taxes, of all kinds, are a form of coercion. When earning people are taxed, it discourages them from working, in one way or another. This reduces the overall output in the economy. So the money taxed to be spent on something good causes poverty in some other area by reducing overall economic output.
This is why in public policy, we have frameworks for government spending. Market Failure is one such framework we have discussed in the past. It talks about those instances where human freedoms don't produce optimal results, and hence there is a case for the government to intervene. When the government intervenes, through coercive means at times of market failure, the benefits generally outweigh the costs.
For an aspiring policy professional, the concept of monopoly on violence should evoke a sense of caution. Because all your policy suggestions are grounded in the state's capacity to inflict violence on its citizens. So tread carefully. If you believe violence is not the answer to the issues around us, then the state isn't either. Because at the heart of the state is violence.
1. Watch this documentary that talks about the idea of monopoly on violence through historic examples.
ncG1vNJzZminnpq9sLjInLCcp56YsrHAwLCcnqNeqMKjv9OamqRmk6S6cLyOa2tmpZ%2BjvLG7y7JkqJ5dq7awuMSnmp4%3D