The theory of elite manipulation argues that elites deliberately instigate a purposeful strategy for acquiring and maintaining political power. Implementing elite manipulation is one of the key reasons for a heightened risk of nationalist conflicts and is instrumental toward coercing ethnic divisions for political gain (Snyder 2000, Gagnon 2004). In societies with strong ethnic identities, elites find it expedient to capitalize on already existing ethnic networks in pursuit of political power and private interests (Ngugi, 2013). Once in power, the elite can manipulate ethnic groups as internally homogenous creating a dominant narrative of “us” verses “them”. When this unfolds, it is possible that the political leaders have incited a civil war …show more content…
The contents of the article can be argued as the standard thinking of French communists of the time; however, another view is that this was indication of Pol Pot’s entrance as an elite manipulator. Tactful in his writing, Pol Pot targets King Sihanouk, his policies, and monarchies in general, as opposed to outright criticizing French colonialism in Cambodia. He writes, “The King is absolute. He attempts to destroy the people’s interest when the people are in position of weakness” (Brinkley, 2011, p. 27). On the surface, it appears that Pol Pot has solely condemned the King as an enemy of the Khmer people, their traditional religion and values. Between the lines, however, Pol Pot successfully links the monarch to the presence of French colonizers without explicit …show more content…
Working with the underground socialist movement, the party would officially be named the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Later, in 1963, the CPK Congress officially appointed Pol Pot secretary general of the movement. The CPK would establish a campaign for armed struggle, declaring that rural peasant farmers were the true working class proletariat and lifeblood of the revolution. An element of romanticism toward agricultural peasantry has long been a trait of the radical bourgeoisie. The revolution would entail an uprising against the government. Justification for a revolution was delivered under the guise of a therapeutic act by which non-western people would regain the dignity they had lost to colonial oppressors and to American style materialism, selfishness, and immorality (Vandenbroek, 2008). Pol Pot boasted an ability to “live by nature”, as it had been done during the Angkor era, to legitimize an ethnic crusade toward reclaiming genuine Khmer national identity that had been minimalized by colonists. This use of propaganda was delivered through a charismatic authority, a characteristic Pol Pot epitomized. Charismatic authority represents a desire to disrupt or change the prevailing social order of a
A current example of this would be the ongoing Darfur genocide. Sudanese troops and Arab Janjaweed militia have been accused of causing the deaths of more than 250,000 ethnic Fur, Masala, and Zhagwa in the Darfur region of Sudan. While religious factors have been cited as part of a reason for this conflict, one of the main factors of the genocide reside in the Arab desire to settle people of their own ethnicity and religion in areas currently occupied by largely Christian ethnic groups. The Arab-controlled government of Sudan has been accused of practicing Arab-apartheid, favoring their own people over the other non-Arab groups of Sudan. In doing so, many ethnic Arab Sudanese may now believe that they are the superior ethnic group in Sudan, leading them to think that such atrocities are acceptable or necessary for the establishment of a purely Arab territory in Darfur - a way of thinking that is on the verge of exploding into extreme nationalism. By attempting to take over the Darfur region by force and eliminating those who may pose a threat or oppose this scheme, Arab peoples in Sudan are putting the effects of extreme nationalism into their actions. These unacceptable acts demonstrate how uniting a people by force and subjecting or eliminating the opposition is appalling to the utmost - and how extreme nationalism is both
Between 1975 and 1979, Pol Pot-the leader of the Khmer Rouge followed Maoist communism, which they thought they could create an agrarian utopia. Agrarian means that the society was based on agriculture. They wanted all members of society to be rural agricultural workers and killed intellectuals, who had been depraved by western capitalist ideas. A utopia means a perfect society. This idea went to extremes when The Khmer Rouge resumed that only pure people were qualified to build the revolution. They killed Cambodians without reasons by uncivilized actions such as: cutting heads, burying alive… There were about 1.7 million people killed by the Khmer Rouge.
Compared to Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot looks like the good guy! Even though both dictators were incredibly bad Hitler takes the cake for managing to kill and torture over 6 million people. On the other hand Pot wanted to make everyone work on one huge federation of collective farms. The Holocaust was an attempt by Hitler and the Nazi party to take over Europe and create a “Master Race” (“Holocaust,” “Some”). The Holocaust lasted from 1933 to 1945, when Hitler finally committed suicide in fear of being captured by American troops. This genocide took place all throughout Europe. It started in Germany and spread all the way to Great Britain. (“Some”). The Cambodian Genocide was an attempt by the Khmer Rouge to take over and centralize all Cambodian farmers (“Cambodian”). This genocide lasted from 1975 to 1978 when the Khmer rouge was finally overthrown by the Vietnamese (“Cambodian”). The Cambodian genocide happened in Cambodia, a country in south-east Asia. Khmer Rouge, started in 1960 and their leader Pot are the reason for the horrible genocide (“Cambodian”). Both Genocides are different in there own ways. The goal of the Cambodian genocide was to revert back to “year zero” and to make everyone work on a huge collection of farms. Whereas the goal of the Holocaust was to create a “master race” which ended up killing over 6 million people. These genocides are also similar in many ways, two of which are their government overthrows and who they killed.
Ung (2000) mentions that the Cambodian genocide is a product of a perfect agrarian vision that can be built by eliminating Western influence. More specifically, the Angkar perceives peasants and farmers as “model citizens” because many have not left the village and were not subjected to Western influence (Ung 2000:57). Moreover, the Khmer Rouge emphasized the ethnic cleansing of individuals from other races who were not considered “true Khmer” and represented a “source of evil, corruption, [and] poison” (Ung 2000:92). Lastly, the ideology centered on obtaining lost territory was based on a “time when Kampuchea was a large empire with territories” (Ung 2000:78). In essence, Ung successfully demonstrates that multiple causes encouraged the Cambodian
...hat sometimes some ethnic groups didn’t share the same ideas with other people and that lead to fights and violence with the purpose of become the leader.
"Pol Pot in Cambodia 1975-1979." The History Place : Genocide in the 20th Century: Pol Pot in Cambodia 1975-1979. The History Place, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. .
Politics is defined as “the way people decide who gets what, when, where, how, and why—without resorting to violence” (McDonough 20). The author asserts that politics is the alternative pathway for a society to make decisions besides choosing violent means to go about doing so. Instead of using force, politicians use words and the method of persuasion in order to get what they want. When a society has a group of people who feel they are not fairly represented by their elected officials, they will often turn to violence in order to implement changes to the political process that will put in place the rules and regulations they are seeking.
Sociologists examine power in the political, economic, and military institutions of America, as C. Wright Mills describes the shift in national power to advantage those who are part of these three institutions. The “power elite” (1) are those who are from similar social backgrounds and interests, therefore those in the top of hierarchy are interchangeably making decisions for other social institutions, in which they have no power to do so. For example, “the corporation executive whose company was one of the two or three leading war material producers is now the Secretary of Defense” (3), therefore the rise in power of the power elite have caused those who are not belonging to the power elite to lose all form of democratic rights. Many of the
In order to develop a general framework with which to understand collective political violence, I examine state mass killings in Indonesia 1965-66. While acknowledging the importance of historical/cultural factors, I identify elements within the sociopolitical sphere that influence actors of collective political violence at national, local, and event- specific levels. Elements discussed are elite interests, justification for violence, formal organizations, and mobilization factors. Finally, I suggest future preventative policy measures.
Johnson, C. (2008). Partitioning to peace: Sovereignty, demography, and ethnic civil wars. International Security, 32(4), 140-170.
The Guatemalan state has used the “extrajudicial” violence to maintain political control over the civilians (Ball, 1999: 3). In fact, the level of state terror was the worst in 1982, when the Guatemalan army killed tens of thousands of civilians and destroyed hundreds of Indian communities. More time 34,363 killings and disappearances in Guatemala resulted from the extrajudicial killing (Ball, 1999: 11). Some of the tactics used were beheaded, burned alive, raped, smashed babies against the rock, and kidnapped (Ball, 1999: 41). Groups were formed by indigenous people and Ladino peasants, who together make up the poor to fight against the government of Guatemala. They wanted to eliminate the political repression and reclaim their lands. The government along with the private corporations attempted to take over their lands, but the indigenous people were trying to use the court to defend the unfairness, but to no avail (Ball, 1999: 91). One of the causes of the Civil War was the greed of the private corporations. They controlled a massive of the Guatemalan economy and nearly most of the land. They refused to redistribute the unused land to the poor people. The United States used its power to support the privatization held by the wealthy class. Another cause was the racism that the indigenous received. The indigenous people were enslaved by the wealthy Ladinos. There were treated with inequality and received poor treatment, and they were forced to give up their own land. This case study tells us that the ones with most power are getting most of the privilege. Whites have absolutely more rights than people of color. This also emphasizes ‘no power no say’ under the structural
Haskell, J. (n.d.). Racial Politics, Power, and Dominant Party Autocracy in Malaysia. Retrieved from http://sjir.stanford.edu/6.1.07_haskell.html
Collier has presented the notions of ethnic identity and national identity. These two types of identities clash within certain international governments. Collier explained, “A society can function perfectly well if its citizens hold multiple identities, but problems arise when those subnational identities arouse loyalties that override loyalty to the nation as whole” (Collier, 2009, pg. 51). Essentially this quote explains that ethnic identities create a sense of loyalty to one’s ethnic group rather than one’s national identity. This type of loyalty causes discrepancies within the political structure of one’s nation. Collier focuses on the Kenyan government to help represent his claims.
Ross, Mark Howard. “The Relevance of Culture for the Study of Political Psychology and Ethnic Conflict”. Political Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 2, Special Issue: Culture and Cross-Cultural