Suchergebnisse

An attempt to give a classification of internal violence, occurring in 40 developing countries, in order to provide a 'structure of violence' for each country in the period 1950-67, & to r this structure to the changes in the real per capita income of these countries. For the collection of the various items of internal violence, Keesings Historical Archives (Dutch version) was used. They were classified as follows: (1) Diffuse SP unrest (strikes, demonstrations, riots, etc, in which people were wounded, killed &/or property was destroyed). (2) Coup d'etat-like activities. (3) Small guerrillas in the countryside & clusters of (anticolonial) violent actions in the towns. (4) Limited civil or anti-colonial war. (5) 'Endemic' guerrillas. (6) Situation of serious anarchy. (7) .1Pol'al' pogroms of total civil or anticolonial war. A 'profile of violence' for each country was constructed. In the Latin Amer couutries coup d'etat activities prevailed; in several African countries these activities became numerous some yrs after independence was obtained; in the Middle Eastern countries all types of violence occurred; & in the ethnically complicated Asian countries, small & endemic guerrillas frequently arose. A relation between types & extent of internal violence, & level of nat'l income & its yr'ly per capita growth could not be proved. The material suggests that nat'l income & changes therein as such, may not be very interesting variables. Distribution of income & changes therein might be more relevant. The difficulty, however, is to obtain reliable data on these variables. A number of suggestions are made. Modified IPSA.

J. Galtung's redefinition of the concept of peace is a classic example of an attempt to reorient a discipline by coining a new term; but it should not be the pleasant connotation of the term 'positive peace', but its usefulness in studying factual violence, which should be decisive in determining the merits of the new definition. Three objections to Galtung's definition are raised: (1) It is quite ineffective to criticize the 'minimal' definition of violence, which is meant to refer to observable phenomena, by counterproposing a theoretical construct. Galtung's definition of violence, which, apart from 'direct' violence, includes also 'structural' violence, needs prior operationalization before it can be used in empirical research. (2) Although Galtung's use of the term 'structural violence' suggests otherwise, any indication of the social units to which the 'actual' & 'potential realizations' in his definition of violence refer, is lacking. Most of Galtung's examples are at the individual level. Social interdependencies (eg, those resulting from the DofL) necessitate the introduction of properties of the SE order in Galtung's terminology & require that he make explicit how 'the best attainable realizations' (as the most likely interpretation of 'potential realizations') can be incorporated in his thinking. (3) In drawing a distinction between 'personal violence' & 'structural violence', Galtung mistakes a distinction between theoretical alternatives in the study of violence (ie, the Clausewitzian approach vs the causal-empirical approach) for a distinction between kinds of violent relationships. In emphasizing that the causes of war should also be searched for in periods of peace, Q. Wright has shown that 'positive peace' cannot be considered as an alternative for 'negative peace'. Nevertheless, Galtung's use of the term has induced serious disagreement among peace researchers about the most desirable research strategy in their discipline. 'Critical' peace researchers (Galtung not included) tend to rely on ideological testimony instead of empirical proof for the causes of violence. Research into those causes, including the relationship between social injustice & violence, is regarded a more fruitful approach. 6 Tables. Modified HA.

The need for a normative (ie, ethical) theory of political action is discussed. After evaluating the idea that politicians & rulers have the right to use violence, lies, & ruses to combat violence & ruse within the community, some important conclusions are drawn from the general democratic principle "no power without control & possibility of sanction by those being subject to that power." Applied to the problem of corruption, this principle can be used as a guideline for a systematic exploration of the structural sources of corruption, defined in a general way as abuse of power (detournement de pouvoir). The main thesis -- that the sources of corruption are found in "deficiencies of the system" that create opportunities for a particular pressure of power to exert an overwhelming influence (without possibilities of control & sanction) in the processes of defining the "public interest" or the "common good" -- is elaborated by an analysis of such "deficiencies" in the Belgian political-administrative system (most of which are not peculiar to the Belgian situation). Suggestions for preventing corruption (mainly through legislation) are offered. Modified HA.