According to Hannah Arendt violence is instrumental which means violence is cause with help of source. Violence is neither rational nor it is legitimate and violence cannot make history or revolution. Violence causes grieving and it cause damage to the society. Further she says that, actions are irreversible and violent acts move world towards more violence.
Hannah Arendt says power belongs to groups but within group individuals don’t have power over others. Since, within group power belongs to no one yet everyone is powerful in the group. When groups become weak or not listen by anyone they feel powerless. When people see losing power they tend to substitute it with violence. Consequently, less power leads to more violence. Therefore, if in a state citizens have strong groups they will have more power and state will have less violence.
Does less violence mean peace?
- To handle inconvenience, temporize not suppress it
According to the article Rome defines dictator as, “to give power to some one man to make decisions without consulting others and to carry them out without anyone having the right to appeal.” Rome chooses to have dictator whenever any thread appears to harm their state. For Rome having dictator at emergency was always helpful to deal with present and future threads. In fact whenever any danger, either internal or external appears citizens get apprehensive. In such situation the safe way to deal with danger is to temporize or to take time to deal with problem instead of directly going to trickle the problem right away. Without taking time and preparation if someone tries to end the danger they mostly end up been weak, which strengthen their enemies.
According to the article internal threads for a state are caused by two reasons. One when citizens allowed more power than they should have and second is when administrative body is corrupted. It is difficult to recognize the internal threads initially because mostly we give power to someone whom we think is able and competent; therefore, it is easy to overlook their mistakes.
In article they have given examples from Rome, here I want to give example of my own country Pakistan. When Musharaf was dictator he without taking any second opinion declared “War on Terror” at the first it seems effective but now Pakistan is fighting “War on No One.” Since, it was a quick decision by a dictator without well preparation of state which made Pakistan weaker and Taliban come up with new plans to fight back. As suggested in article it would have been helpful if other methods like negotiation or peaceful talks were done with Taliban to address the problem instead of going for an unending war.
- In spite of appointed by free how it become harmful
In the article the example taken from Rome talks about the free appointment of 10 people who were responsible to make laws and take all decisions by their own. These ten people were appointed by free election. They were expected to be good but the outcome was contrary of what had been expected. The article says that when “unrestricted authority” is given to someone for longer period means more than a year or so, it may always be dangerous. It may have good or bad consequences according to the nature of that person. It means if a good person is given power for longer time period the results will be good and vice versa. But later on it says that regardless of the person, if absolute power is given to anyone they become arrogant and misuse their power.
Dictators can be helpful in the times of emergency but prolong unrestricted authority makes them arrogant and they mostly abuse their power.
Carl Schmitt defines state as the “political status of an organized people in an enclosed territorial unit.” Here the word political not only talks about the form or means of government or governance rather Schmitt associates many other aspects of human attachments and daily activities with the term political. Schmitt claims that, “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” It means that anything for which someone willing to “kill or die” is political and or in other words something becomes political when it comes to friend and enemy distinction. So the values, relationships, or other things for which someone can scarify or die are friends and ones who are dangerous for friends are enemies. In other words we can say that we make friends or enemies on the basis of differences and likes. Friend and enemy distinction is based on the values which are important for us. Anything can be political when it creates strong bonding among people such as religion, moral values, ethnicity, nationality, economic status and on so. For instance, if certain ethnicity encourages it people to make group against other ethnicity then it develops the notion of friend and enemy distinction, then it becomes political.
Homo Sacer is a term used by Roman to identify a person whose citizenship is removed because of his wrong deeds, hence, Homo Sacer left with only bare life. Bare life means a person without having a say in political activities and state related issues. On bases of this Nazi Germany removed the citizenship of Jews and then killed, punished and torture them without juridical trials and without considering constitutional laws. Since, Homo Sacer is place outside of the law and killing of Homo Sacer is not a crime. But killing of Homo Sacer is a controversial debate among philosopher. Some say that Homo Sacer is outside of law so it is okay to kill him without committing a crime and other say that one can’t kill Homo Sacer because a sinister can’t be offer to god. Because in early Roman, religion and state affairs were under the control of god and killing someone was considered scarifying for god.
According to Agamben, sovereignty is sometimes inside of the law and other times it is outside of the law depends on the situation. In the state of exception power belongs to the dictator or the head of the state even beyond the constitution. Sovereign has the ability to suspend the rule of law because law has given power over itself to sovereign in the times of emergency. Therefore, in the state of exception sovereign has monopoly over law and decision making. Other than emergency, in the time of peace constitution has power over all decision making processes. At that time sovereign is within law.
I agree with Taylor that the conventional way of studies at schools and even at university levels encourage students to memorize the correct answer instead of appreciating students to dig the depth for the answer from untouched angles. Testing and examining method at schools provides only answer or few answers to the questions. Most of the time questions in traditional setup are close ended. In order to promote true learning first of all the questions should be open ended and students should be supervised to get the answer instead of providing answers to memorize. In most of the conventional teaching system students are in a continuous competition with each other to score high grades. The level of intelligence is measured by the numbers scored on the test without acknowledging the circumstances where the test has being taken. Sometimes even if the student knows the answer but due to some other problems he/she may not able to perform well on the test day and got bad grades. Consequently they are been judged as weak students. Their talent, hard work and abilities are being underestimated and vice versa.
Socratic tradition of teaching should be encouraged in the schools because it opens doors for discussion based studies where teachers work as facilitators. In this way students will have chance to share their ideas without been judge. Classes will be interesting and students will not fall in sleep or will not keep their eyes on watch all the time. For class participation and for class attendance teachers will not have to allocate marks. A specific syllabus will not be required for a class. Everyone will response to the questions according to their understanding and will justify their responses through various approaches. There will be no right or wrong answer neither will be only answer for the questions.
This idea of Socratic teaching style is similar to the way Buddha start to learn about the life and the sufferings comes with it. Then from personal analysis and understanding through critical questions Buddha was able to open the doors towards enlightenment. Buddha attended enlightenment through thinking about the problems of life from various angles and he analyzed problems in critical way to get solutions instead of believing in the conventional norms of life.