Why the spectre of violence hangs over our politics

In human relations, coercion as a method of forcibly influencing and winning over hearts and minds is as old as time. The shenanigans of the Vikings, Vandals, slave merchants, imperialists and tribal chiefs and national monarchs among others, vying for territory, human and material gain, were brought to speed by the element of force.

Might laid the foundation for great spheres of influence and rich histories. Violence as an option in this regard was (is) deemed as appropriate for its capability to annihilate the resistant, humiliate the passive, and manipulate the intimidated. It was (is) useful for conquerors to perpetuate and advance their interests.

Fast forward to the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries; outright violence was watered down with the advancement of religious (especially Christian) beliefs, and the pacifist cause of the civil rights movements. These emphasised the value of human life which violent conquests apparently denigrated.

What followed was a more humane approach that conquerors used to buy the favour of their targets. That worked with those who collaborated. It is how beads, clothes and trinkets worked in the colonisation campaign in some parts of Africa . The element of force was reserved for those who resisted attempts by conquerors to secure spheres of influence diplomatically.
With the introduction of self rule in the modern era, the great powers in the East and West courted third world nations with the same approach using aid, grants, military assistance etc to keep their hold over nations. They sponsored belligerents to overthrow those that were not for their ideology.

Thus the culture of giving for favour percolated into the local politics just as the custom of failing those who had nothing material to offer entrenched itself. A respectable politician seeking to represent people had (has) to be a provider financially and morally.
The basis of this thinking is that most of the electorate believe there is a lot of money in politics and that a political representative is exposed to endless financial opportunities that he is expected to exploit and share. This is not always the case.

Because the pressure on a politician to deliver groceries is very high, most of the campaign promises are outright lies. Besides the cardinal duty of a legislator is to make laws and not to repair roads or build schools. This makes an incumbent’s position vulnerable. Resilience and resistance becomes part of the politician in this position.

Another trouble is that almost every political player knows about the need to give and mobilises heavily for the same cause to be at par with the rest. The competition drives the price for hearts and minds higher by the day. There are more expectations, lies and potentially broken promises.

Since what is given materially is a great financial premium, it requires most of the political players to keep their eyes on their money to secure their investment. Losing then ceases to be an option. This creates tension.

As part of attempts to manage the risk, and lower the financial burden on political players, there is a deliberate effort to keep contenders as few as possible. The players apply dirty methods.

These efforts are geared at creating a fluid situation that is not for the faint-hearted. Politics is then dominated by people with few scruples who would want victory at all costs, with the violent one being the easiest of options because of its instant results.

This is what makes the election season an endless running battle. It is why violence will always be part of our politics in the foreseeable future.
***
A small fact I learnt from Facebook: Allodoxaphobia is the fear of opinions.

Nicholas Sengoba is a commentator on political and social issues
nicholassengoba@yahoo.com