Monopoly of legitime violence

We live our daily lives feeling protected, supported by an order, by the predictability of our environment, and the supposed internal coherence of its functioning. We understand that there are mechanisms for defending against injustices, institutions that support claims, an authority to appeal to, a state that guarantees rights.

The state, as an authority over the monopoly of physical violence, with control over coercive means in a territorially defined area, legitimizes and justifies itself in the popular will of the people and the pursuit of the general welfare. However, throughout history, on numerous occasions, states have acted against the will of the people and the general welfare, violating human rights, while maintaining their monopoly on legitimate violence, which implies the availability of means and instruments to exercise it, a phenomenon known as state terrorism.

The question is: what possibilities does the population have to assess, analyze, and above all control that the state’s means and instruments, as the monopolizer of the exercise of violence, are exercised in alignment with certain values and/or refrain from certain corrupt forms? It is known that states declare and carry out wars, but what makes populations think, believe (perhaps even as a form of faith), that the state will not declare war or use police or military forces against its own population, the kiosk owner, the child, the neighbors?

One could think that war is not only declared against the population through military means. To what extent do laws and regulations that precariously affect the lives of the majority of people in favor of concentration in the hands of a few not amount to an attack against the populations? In a context of financial capitalism, where human rights, along with our planet and its biodiversity, are constantly undermined, does the state function as a guarantor of rights, or as a necessary scaffolding for capitalism, willing to pay any cost?

If the state does not act in the interest of the collective, and instead acts according to sectorial interests of the population, its ultimate foundation, which grants it legitimacy, is broken. Although it is no longer legitimate for the state to hold the monopoly on violence, resisting it is still disproportionately unequal, as it continues to control these instruments, whereas civil society does not. This asymmetry arises from the differential control of various resources—economic, ideological control, information, and physical coercion. What possibilities for resistance do the populations have in this case? How do we avoid that such resistance leads to anomie, disorder, or genocide?

Democratic institutions seem to be in crisis in Latin America, while new forms of oppression and exclusion arise, often making use of the concentrated coercive power in the hands of the state with the reappearance of military forces in public life. It seems that the Hobbesian state of nature—where there are no norms and the stronger impose themselves on the weaker with the constant risk to their own lives—is, in fact, a complex and present reality.

The state must be led by governments that can provide direction, a specific political project, but above all, it must be able to articulate the different sectors of society to achieve agreements and consensus.

The true challenge for movements attempting to transform the world into a better place for the development of life and to reclaim social justice is to engage with those who do not think the same way, and even integrate all sectors of society as legitimate, not just our own, into our projects.

The advance of conservative and reactionary thinking in our societies is visible in electoral results in democracies around the world. Can anyone afford to underestimate or discredit majorities in electoral processes? What happens with Latin American populations that voted for Macri or Bolsonaro, how do we address that situation? How can we establish communication channels between both sides of the issue, at times when it is urgent?

Trying to understand the leaderships that may come to power in the state means understanding the different sectors that make up our society. It is essential that all sectors articulate and negotiate in favor of protecting life over militarization, violence, and death as mechanisms for organizing societies.

Social organization and political participation in institutionalized spaces of power must be tools of order and resistance, just as our rejection and disdain for politics and institutions enable and free up space to limit our capacity to confront the violent advances of models that impose and violate human rights. It is essential to articulate, negotiate, and generate agreements that allow for political leadership and prevent situations of anomie and destruction, the perfect excuse for antidemocratic interventions.

Today, more than ever, we learn that we must not underestimate the power of the state, nor assume that it will always be exercised in the interest of the collective, given the reality that Latin America is facing. We must view the state and its forces as entities that can dangerously end up in misguided leadership, understanding that all actors and all voices must converge in negotiations that allow for the preservation of not only democracy but also governability and life.