Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Yes, of course. It has a relation with three M’s: muscle, money and mafia. Muscle, money and mafia. Its muscle, money and mafia. It has a connection with muscle, money and mafia.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Well, violence is something that is used by people who are in power to maintain their power and to gain more power and that is a strategy. If we think of the recent conflict situation in Lebanon and the indiscriminate bombing and Israel aggression in Lebanon, we saw more than thousand people die. The people who are most affected in this conflict are children who do not ask for this war. And yet, if we look at United States government and the members of the Congress, they voted on a bill to call this Israel’s acts as an act of self-defense. They were playing politics. Even leaders who stood up against war, people such as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, when the vote came to the Congress, all they could say was “present” instead of voting against a bill which talked about -- which was basically about collective punishment of the people of Lebanon as an act of self-defense. So violence, basically over time, we have seen this being used by people in power to maintain their power; and it is the kind of power which basically is the right of few people to decide for the majority. And the most marginalized -- women, children, elderly -- people are subjected to violence so that those few people can remain in power.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think there is a connection between politics and violence and it runs deep into the mentality of the politics in question. When we are in the ego-centric way of being a human being, the politics that comes from that is going to be a politics of violence, and this really comes from all of our great wisdom teachings across the planet. Our great teachers knew that when we are in the ego-centric ego-mental way of thinking and being a human being, we are in a form of life, a way of being that is inherently violent. We violate ourselves, we split ourselves from our own connected integral self, we split from each other, we split across cultures and worlds. And, all of these are splits and polarizations are objectifying ways that violate each other and ourselves. So, it is a politics of violence. So, I think the real question is, what is the mentality and the consciousness that is generating the culture and the political form of that culture to the extent here in the ego-centric mind -- ego-mental mind we are always going to have inherent violence in that kind of culture and consciousness and the politics -- ego-centric politics is a politics of violence? In contrast, the politics that comes from an awakened integral, holistic, connected, consciousness of compassion and care and love is going to be the politics of non-violence, and that is the politics our great teachers have been teaching us and modeling for us. Teachers like Buddha and Krishna and Jesus and Mohammed, Abraham and Moses, all of our great teachers understood that we are interconnected beings and when we live in that moral, compassion and connection that kind of awakened politics is a politics of care and compassion and not the politics of violence.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: To the extent that the state or any embodiment of groups that are part of political processes are committed to the paradigm of dominance, power, and control can be the perpetrators of violence, whether it's through the declaration of war or through perpetuating or perpetrating acts of terror as a way to become engaged in the political process. There is a nexus between using violence as a way to ultimately wield power. And to the extent that we in peace processes engage perpetrators of violence and legitimize criminal acts, we can see how we really have to look more deeply at the commitments that we have to what I would say now is the old paradigm of domination and control and the need for us to move into the new paradigm of wisdom and knowledge. Yet we should not tolerate the use of violence as a way to continue to promote and adhere to paradigms of control and domination. And increasingly our higher consciousness must call all of us to reflect more deeply how we must all engage in the shift of our consciousness towards the [audio ends].

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: I think that the connection between violence and politics changed several times in history. Basically the politicians in the past used violence because violence was glorious. Violence was a way to become famous and popular. The violent persons in history have mostly been admired and popular. But I think today the things have changed. I think that most people in most countries understand that violence is in fact disastrous and that they only use violence when they think that there is no alternative and they use it to defend themselves when they are being attacked. But who is being attacked and when and why? The common citizen doesn't know the answer to this question. The politician often explains it to him and it is true that politicians could have an interest in being violent and to say to their people that it is being attacked and that it has to defend itself. And if he succeeds he is successful and glorious. I think that you basically have to separate violence from politics because the formation and the education of humans help them to decide whether a war is important, necessary and unavoidable and not that it is the politician who tells him that. And then politics will have a different meaning. In Western Europe we have already come so far but not in many other parts of the world. And that has not only something to do with experiences in the past but also with education and culture.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: We are in a time of war, as we sit here, I wish those that are watching and listening or you could be here at this table, the hope answers these questions. Politics, when we say is something that is so political, what does that mean? When we look at the way that things are implemented and the means behind them, why are we doing these things in the world? Why are we taking advantage or suppressing the people? Why are we expanding the market? Why are we doing the things that we’re doing on the world and we say, ah, it's political; it’s for a reason, there’s an invested interest. Our politicians have an invested interest for their own careers, for their own lives. Often, it is a interest of greed, unfortunately. However, there are politicians and people that are working for the whole and not for themselves. But when you haven’t invested interest and you want to get what you want, and that is in conflict with what you want is in conflict, with what is right? The might versus right. I mean to push you a little more to get what I want. If I want something you have that can benefit me and I want it, and you’re not -- and you're not willing to give it back then usually it results in a way of violence. Violence is the result in the absence of conflict, communication. If you don’t have communication you have a conflict. Violence comes in, and there’s non-violent communication as well as violent communication. We need to resort back to the non-violent ways in politics. We need to make a connection between politics and non-violence more than politics and violence.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: War, as an expression of violence, is being made by politicians who are not taking part of this violence. They promote it, they easily make those decisions, but they are not involved. Meanwhile, innocent people are suffering the consequences of these decisions, while a few are gaining a strategic opportunities. Can be business, can be land, can be territory, can be power. War and violence it's an unethical business. So we need a change, a change of the situation. We need to free the world for more, for the majority.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: One of the most important inventions of the last several thousand years was the concept of the rule of law. And the Greeks gave this to us and the idea of the rule of law is that the people with power will give up the power, submit to the law so that we all can be free. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, nation-states exercising their economic and military power often can use violence for political means whether it’s economic violence or actual physical violence. The concept of pre-emptive war that the Bush administration used as part of it’s rationale for the war in Iraq was an incredible use of violence for not only based on fear but also increasingly for political reasons. So I think that it’s only through international law and recognizing not just the kind of law the Greeks gave us but the law between nations and submitting to international institutions and international law that we can hope to reduce the violence in the world. And as China rises in this century and other countries become more powerful we go more to a multipolar world. Hopefully we’ll get a more stable world and a more peaceful world because it seem like we had during, believe it or not, during the Cold War.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: Politic is by great portion exhibited by violence. This is more visible in dictatorships, however in so called democracy this is done underhand. All this begins from the imagination of the politicians that, whole population and there live depend on the political and national leadership. However, as big part of living people feel resistance towards current state, so the politic starting from Plato to our time uses laws, by which usage of pressure becomes legal.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: So, let’s look at politics and violence. We can define violence as the unlawful exercise of force; not just physical, but also mental and emotional. Really, it arises out of fear and what we call outrage when rage is flowing out of us. So, the connection between politics and violence. I suppose at its root, basically, when we don’t get our fundamental needs and wants met, then often what comes up is this emotion of anger and rage. I believe this is due to an imbalance. Because if you think about it, it goes right back to each person. You could say that war is the result of the collective cries and the collective stress being outpoured by huge numbers of people. I believe it comes from a very limited sense of who we are. Again, when our identity is so caught up with place and caught up with what we have, then when that is threatened violence often ensues. However, extreme action is sometimes justified. It’s like a “when all else fails” kind of strategy. When politics is governed by power and control over people, then it may be justified as a last resort and we see that happening now in many parts of the world. Often when the intelligence of the people falls, that’s often when military interaction rises. Maybe we have to shift our consciousness.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Catherine David:

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: I think politics itself, if it carries a gun, its variant because there are those -- I think today there is less real politics, but of course it depends where in the world; politics carries a gun, politics carries bombs, politics carries the machines of war. And then this makes me wonder, why if we're so knowledgeable and we call ourselves human, why do we form politics of medals of death? There are even leaders who use politics who use propaganda and call it politics.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: It is a great danger, today, to recognize different blocs, blocs of power in international politics in the context of a clash of civilizations, in the context of just one identity of different world cultures and world religions, a monolithic identity that will inevitably lead to conflicts and lead to violence. I would like to suggest to act on the assumption of multiple identities, a man is not just a member of a religion, be it Hindu, be it Christianity, be it Islam, he is a member of a certain social class, he may be a musician, a poet, he may love literature or the movies, he may belong to a certain social group. All I would like to say is: it is difficult to reconcile one identity with another one in the context of a clash of civilizations, this always leads to violence, this leads to identity conflicts. I think it would be more responsible to act on the assumption of multiple, of different identities, a man can be a Christian, but he can live in Africa, he can be a Muslim, he can live in America. We all have different identities and not just one. If we take India, for instance, India is not just a Hindu civilization with a population of 1.1 billion, there are also 150 millions of Muslims living in India, this is just one example of many. That is to say I think in order to avoid violence and outbursts of violence in ethnic-religios conflicts, it would be more responsible in the future to speak not only of bloc-like identities that are opposed to each other in the context of a clash of civilization, but to speak of a multitude of identities, of overlapping identities, in order to differentiate and at the same time in order to make the conflicts between the different groups of civilization and groups of religions coherent. It would be responsible, maybe the potential of violence could be reduced, which is difficult enough, for instance between the Islam and the west. There is not just only one west, there is a multitude of western traditions of different European, American cultures, and there is not just only one Islam either, there is a multitude of islamic traditions, thus multiple identities.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Cornel West: The modern state itself is an institution that has a monopoly of the instrumentalities of violence and, therefore, it has the major institutional power to authorize war, to declare war, to command army, navy, air force and other armed forces. There is no doubt that when we talk about modern violence, we are talking very much about the struggle for material resources, the struggle for geopolitical advantage and sometimes the sheer outright institutional hatred and organized contempt for peoples. So that the complex relation between politics and violence as we move from one context to another and one situation to another has to acknowledge the fundamental role of the modern nation state on the one hand and economic interests, especially of the corporate elite, and the language of nationalism justifying national interest and national security. For me the question, especially asked by an artist, is how do we counter such violence? How do we stop the cycle of violence? How do we ensure that an institution like the nation state does not plunge its precious citizens into such often senseless wars, unjustified wars, immoral wars, illegal wars? And that for me is a crucial question, and I think the only answer to that question is to attempt to shape climate of opinion, so we can actually cast a limelight on the interest behind so many of our wars, to secondly try to live a life to bear witness in such a way that we are courageously opposing such wars and thirdly, trying to keep alive visions so that we can provide some alternatives such that these wars are not necessary and the human suffering can be alleviated.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: Yes, politics is directly connected to violence. I have seen a lot of killings -- political killings, political abuses, political riots which resulted to mass graves. In fact, we have experienced in our country in the Philippines how political leads to violence although we have to accept the fact that politics is just one cause of violence. However, the power of manipulation, the hunger for power, the desire to maintain their power by the politicians directly results to violence and we can see that -- we have seen that, we have experienced that on the ground, in our own backyard, in our own countries, in our own communities. And this politics really directly result to violence because of the greediness of the politicians to maintain their position in power. So, it's an appeal to those politicians who want to serve themselves and not to be there to serve the people to minimize political violence. It's not just enough to say there is a direct connection of politics and violence. But the issue here is we should try to contribute to minimize violence caused by politics in our backyard. And this is the essence of perhaps being here in the Dropping Knowledge to call for global action, to contribute to the termination or minimize in violence as a result of politics.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Yes, I think I know. I think violence is a means for the reigning politics to maintain power. Violence is a way to secure its existence, and violence is a way for the reigning politics to suppress other voices of course. And there are different levels of violence. Obviously, China have had experiences of brutal violence where the army and police have acted brutally on civil population, but I think there are also other kind, there are more subtle ways that politics uses violence. Violence of privacy. Violence of space of expressing yourself or violating that space, and that is a means for the politicians to continue with policies, continue what they are doing and I don’t think it’s only a way of, violence is only used by totalitarian regimes, it's used by democracies also. Violence is also used for, I think, for politicians to a kind of broaden their sphere of power and influence, and that’s a primitive way of doing politics of course and violence also comes from fear.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: I’m going to answer this question with this prayer for the libertation of indigenous people : “Stop pruning my leafs and taking out my hoe. Enough of sinking with my beliefs and breaking my roots. Stop taking out my lungs and suffocating my reason, stop killing my songs and silencing my voice. We don’t cut the roots of whom has seeds, and are spread in the land to grow. We don’t erase the rich memories of the grandparents, our ancestrals, nor a ritual to remember. We don’t mow the big wings, because heaven is freedom and the faith to find it. Pray for us, my father Shaman, so that the evil spirit of the forest don’t cause weakness, misery and starvation. Pray for us, Earth, our mother, so that those ripped clothes and those bad men be over through the sound of the Maracás(sort of indigenous rattle). Keep us away from disgraces, alcohol and discord. Help us with the unity between the nations. Light up the men, women and children. Extinguish envy and ingratitude from the strong ones. Give us light, faith, life in the Pajé’s actions. Avoid, oh Tupã(God), violence and murder in a holy place near the Igarapé. In the nights of full moon, oh Marçal(God), call the spirits of the rocks so we could dance the Toré(a holy indigenous dance). Bring us in the parties of manioc and pajés(outstanding person in a tribe often considered the preacher and/or the healer) for a resistance of life. After drinking our chicha(a holy indigenous beverage made of corn) with faith. Pray for us, birds of the sky, so that leopards, peccaries, rheas and capybaras approach to the rivers São Francisco, Jurema, Paraná, approach to the seas of the Atlantic, because we are pacific nevertheless. Show us our way like a dolphin, illuminate our star to the future. Help us to play the magic flutes so we can sing you an offering song or dance in an Iamaká ritual(a holy indigenous ritual). Pray for us, ave Shaman, in the north-east, in the south, every morning. In The Amazons, in the agreste(narrow zone in the states of Paraíba, Pernambuco, Alagoas, Sergipe and Bahia) or in the heart of cunhã(woman). Pray for us, macaws, pintados or armadillos. Come and meet us, my God, Nhendiru. Make happy our mintã(child), because they are going to be reborn from indigenous bellies. Give us each day hope, because we only ask for land and peace for our poor and rich children.” I’ve read this text as a way to protest against this situation of violence.

by Eliane Potiguara