the thesis

alright, so i'm gonna use this blog as a place to hash out all my ideas about this paper and try to make them all flow in a somewhat coherent manner. usually, my writing for poli sci absolutely blows and i think it's because the format intimidates me. the friendlier blog format is more cozy to me and it feels like home, so i'm gonna write here. early apologies if things sound all mumbled and jumbled...if words on the computer can be mumbly....

anyway, my thesis, aka the whole foundation of my paper, goes like this:
Political violence is most prevalent in countries with more authoritarian regimes and less open politics. This is because, without civil liberties like freedom of speech and the right to protest, citizens have no other way to get recognition for their cause except to become violent. However, India experiences a high amount of terrorist incidents despite the fact that Indians enjoy a vast amount of civil liberties. This terrorism can be largely attributed to the separatist groups in certain areas of India that are fighting violently for control of these regions.

*phew* that's quite a thesis statement. i should probably shorten it. eh, well, that's what revision is for, right?

anyway, right now, i'm thinking of some arguments, but i dont have a lot of evidence to back them up. here, i'll tell you anyway, because you dont care how much evidence i have.

1. in an authoritarian regime, only people with power/land/money have a voice
--this suppresses the poor and uneducated and devalues them. even the middle class doesnt really have a voice. you have to answer to the ruler no matter who you are, unless you are, of course, the ruler. this means that only the ruler gets a say in how things are done. even if a million people sign a petition, the ruler doesn't have to pay a bit of attention to it because he has nobody to answer to. additionally, he doesn't even have to give the people the right to protest him. typically, in less open countries, he doesn't. i propose that this leads to political violence because the people have no other way of being heard because they can't vote for the leader they want and they can't vote against bills/laws they don't want.

2. peaceful protests only work if the government will listen
--if people know that the government wont listen to them if they peacefully assemble, there is no reason for them to do it. in a democracy, it is understood that a protest that is large enough will for sure have an impact. if it doesn't affect the government immediately, at least the media will catch wind of it and become interested. if the media covers a protest, more people will learn about it and theoretically become discontent as well. eventually, a democratic government will have to either listen to the people and change its policies, or the people in office will be voted out.
conversely, in an authoritarian regime, it is not guaranteed that the administration will listen to the people's demands, no matter how large the group is that is protesting. even if the media decides to cover it, the government is not at risk for being voted out of office, so there is no reason for them to listen to the people. but, of course, this is assuming that there is even freedom of the press, and the media is allowed to cover dissenting opinions. so, without support/attention from the press, how is a group supposed to get attention from the government? the answer--terrorism.

((to be continued))