Land Question and Ethnicity in Darjeeling Hills Essay Example for Free

Land Question and Ethnicity in Darjeeling Hills Essay ABSTRACT Although economic factors are often considered as essential for augmenting ethnic movements, the analytic relationship between economic issues and ethnicity is far from being clear cut. In an attempt to address the problem of ethnicity in a non-Marxist theoretical plane, most of the studies on ethnic problems inadvertently indulge such logical inconsistencies. Such a critical reading led us to conceptualize ethnicity as a lived-in category – much like the concepts of class or caste – where both the material and cultural domain of routine life congregates. With the help of a case study of the Gorkhaland movement in the Darjeeling Hills (India) and the input of a particular field of material predisposition – namely, the issues related with land and agrarian social formation, this paper attempts to argue that ethnic movements are a dynamic podium wherein the encoded meanings of material and/or economic issues/grievances are decoded in cultural idioms. Even if the discussions on ethnicity have an inbuilt tendency to develop a theoretical plane that criticizes Marxian class analysis and demands an autonomous conceptual frame duly encouraged by post-Marxist and poststructuralist/postmodernist theoretical renditions, literatures on ethnicity for the most part have stressed economic factors, in some way or the other. Hence, finding available studies, which have made considerable advances in understanding the problem of Gorkha ethnicity, that have concentrated their focus on economic factors as the root cause of ethnic antagonism and conflict in the Darjeeling Hills (West Bengal, India) is common. ‘Economic stagnation’ (Dasgupta 1988), ‘uneven implementation of development policies’ (Chakrabarty 1988), ‘economic deprivation and negligence’ (Bura Magar 1994; Lama 1988; McHenry Jr. 2007; Nanda 1987), ‘petty-bourgeoisie aggrandisements against the dominance of monopoly capitalists of the Centre and the State’ (Sarkar 1988), ‘economic negligence, exploitation, and unavailability of white-collar jobs’ (Chadha 2005), ‘growing unemployment and step motherly attitude of the state regarding the overall development of the hill areas’ (Timsina 1992), ‘uneven development’ (Dasgupta 1999; Datta 1991), ‘endemic poverty, underdevelopment, and the perception of being â€Å"malgoverned†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Ganguly 2005), are some such factors many scholars put as the root cause of the Gorkhaland movement in the Darjeeling Hills. However, none of these studies have made it abundantly clear how economic conditions – the domain of the material – are linked to the desires of ethnic separatism, which conceptually remained under the rubric of culture – the non-material. Again, if the economic factors remarkably remained so significant, as the studies show, then why ultimately the cultural warpath (i.e., 81 ethnic conflict) and not an economic one (i.e., class conflict) appeared as a suitable remedial strategy? One obvious question arises thus: how the ‘material’ is transposed into ‘cultural’? The present paper is an attempt to answer such questions by analyzing the case of the Gorkha ethnicity and movement as it emerged out of the people’s grievances experienced through their quotidian life processes cloaked in their relative positions within the structural inequality. In fact, ethnic identity much like the issues of class or caste is a lived-in category that emerges out of the perception of reality and receives constant reformulation, since the reality is itself dynamic. In our treatment ethnic identification – much like all other identifications – is overall rooted in the larger canvas of social experience, which determines the processes of framing contending relationships between and among groups based on their varying capacity of possessing the valued and scarce resources available in the society. Instead of pinpointing the causes of the movement, our analysis attempts to show that the assertion of Gorkha ethnic identity has had payoffs with respect to resource access and utilization and that the protracted struggle of the Gorkhas for separate statehood is that trajectory wherein both the cultural and material aspects of routine life coalesce. Sometimes this happens even without an immediate ethnic ‘other’. This is particularly the case, as the study shows, with the hill agrarian sector. It thus becomes imperative that the problem should be studied in a historical plane putting utmost emphasis on the social formation of the Darjeeling Hills, which would help us focus the pattern of resource distribution on an ethnic plane vis-à  -vis the question of structural inequality. The importance of treating the issue of Gorkhaland movement as a historical phenomenon can hardly be ignored, especially when one finds that the Darjeeling Hills has experienced a century long historicity of protest – sometimes accommodative, sometimes violent – to achieve a separate politico-administrative arrangement for self rule. Moreover, the historical perspective is needed to show the fundamental changes that have taken place within the social formation of the region since the colonial days and had corresponding effects for furthering the cause of the movement in the post-colonial period. Therefore, a proper historical analysis of ethnicity can help us understand how the grievances of the masses were articulated and were translated into the courses of violent action, how new equations came up because of state intervention and how the overall dynamics of the movement kept on rolling, putting ethnicity at the center stage. SOCIAL FORMATION AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS Indeed, there can never be a single cause of an ethnic movement that stretched over a century.1 However, our concern regarding the causes of Gorkhaland movement is not about degree but of kind, by which we mean that Gorkha ethnicity, or for that matter the Gorkhaland movement, is embedded in the social formation of the Darjeeling Hills. It is neither entirely the product of primordial sentiments nor even the result of elite manipulation, but had been the outcome of a dynamic social formation that reproduced its productive forces, relations of production, as well as the relations of subjugation and exploitation meted out by its incumbents. The onus of social formation in augmenting the cause of social movement has been stressed by most of the major theoretical paradigms in some form or the other. For example, functionalism, though lately emerging from its erstwhile position of bracketing social movements as pathological social behavior, became increasingly concerned with the analysis of social movement as a variety of (normal) collective action and showed the necessity of framing a general hypothesis on the social system while analyzing social movements as a collective phenomenon of some sort. Likewise, symbolic interactionism and resource mobilization theory, in their attempts to analyze social movement, put stress on the relational structures and on the complex processes of interaction mediated by certain networks of belonging, respectively. The Marxist tradition, perhaps, has given utmost emphasis on the necessity to view social movements in relation to structural arrangements available in the social formation. Each social formation is rooted in a particular structure of relationship and movement is not the cause but the outcome of the differentially arranged social order in which privileges and rewards are more in possession of some minority groups compared with the majority others. Even the post-Marxist or for that matter the New Social Movement (NSM) perspective in their zeal to study the identity-based movements as manifestations of post-material claims hardly denied the importance of social formation while understanding the so-called post-material claims of the NSMs. In outlining the principles for the analysis of collective action, Melucci (1996:24) – a prominent figure of NSM school – points out that the analytical field of the NSMs depends on the systems of relationships within which such action takes place and toward which it is directed. The recorded history of the Gorkhaland movement suggests that the first spurt of the movement can be marked out in the year 1907 when the hill people submitted a memorandum – for the first time – to the colonial government urging separation from the then Bengal and the need to formulate a separate administrative arrangement for the Darjeeling Hills. ALTHUSSER, SOCIAL FORMATION, AND THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL DARJEELING Taking a cue from the centrality of social formation in the study of social movement as analyzed above, an attempt has been made to focus on the social formation of the Darjeeling Hills2 and its contribution to the development of a protracted ethnic movement in the region. Our treatment of the concept of social formation is Althusserian in inspiration and is viewed as a complex whole composed of concrete economic, political and ideological relations that provide the pretext upon which the consolidation of selfhood of the individual or the group within a given social space becomes feasible. It is worth mentioning here instead of using such terms like ‘social system’, ‘social order’ or for that matter ‘society,’ Althusser (1997) preferred the use of ‘social formation’. Since he believed while terms like ‘social system’ and ‘social order’ presupposes a structure that reduces the form of all its emanations, ‘society’ as a concept is loaded with pre-Marxist humanist conception that treats social life as ultimately the product of individual human beings. Althusser has used the concept of social formation with some broader theoretical appeal. He problematized the so-called base-superstructure module by bringing together the notions of social system, order, and society closer to his postMarxist formulation of social formation. Social formation, for Althusser, is constituted of a complex of concrete economic, political, and ideological relations, bound together and given their particular character as capitalist, feudal or whatever by the fact that economic relations, is the ‘determinant in the last instance.’ Conceived in this manner the concept of social formation presupposes that under this model social reality is neither determined, nor to be explained by a single causal variable but always by the whole structure (a notion that he labels as ‘overdetermination’), which remains amenable to the economic determinant only in the last instance. The uniqueness in Althusser’s concept of social formation lies in the fact that it problematizes the ‘base-superstructure’ relationship (that remains central, almost invariably, to the whole realm of post-Marxist scholarship) to that extreme of Darjeeling has been one of the prominent hill stations developed by the British i n colonial India.

Voting Rates of the American Poor :: Politics

In The Working Poor, David Shipler reports that in the 2000 presidential election only 38 percent of Americans with incomes less than $10,000 voted compared to 75 percent of those with incomes over $75,000. (278) These sorts of statistics are not limited to 2000. In the six elections from 1980 to 2000, the average voter turnout of people in the bottom fifth of the income quintiles was 53 percent, while the top fifth averaged over 80 percent (â€Å"Election Results†). For the bottom fifth, the average household income was under $11,500 during each election year. The top fifth averaged an income close to $118,000 (DeNavas-Walt, et al.). The 2004 election was no different with 55 percent of the votes cast by people with incomes of $50,000 and up. That means over half of the votes cast were by a group that controls 70 percent of the nation’s wealth. In every election since 1964, when these statistics were first recorded, the South has had a lower voter turnout than the other three major regions. The South has also consistently had the highest poverty rate of the four regions. On average, there is a twenty-five to thirty percentage-point gap between the turnouts of the lowest and highest income quintiles in the United States (Cevrantes and Gluckman). Though it is clear the poor generally don’t vote, the reasons for this are not so clear. Education seems to be biggest factor. Less than 40 percent of citizens without a high school degree voted in the 2000 election, compared with an 80 percent turnout for those with an advanced degree. The percentages rise with more education. A connection to poverty can be drawn when considering that over 13 percent of workers without a high school degree are in poverty, compared with only about 1 percent of workers with a college degree. It should be noted these statistics concern only workers, and not the unemployed. As a United States census report noted, â€Å"Those with a high school education or less were more likely than those with more education to respond that they were not interested in the election or felt their vote would not make a difference.† Even more significant among the poor than the feeling that their vote will not make a difference is the feeling their vote may not be counted. Claims of voting irregularities, true or not, often keep the poor away from the polls. A large bloc of poor Americans disenfranchise themselves out of the fear of being disenfranchised. With a mindset that their vote will just be erased after leaving, the poor avoid Voting Rates of the American Poor :: Politics In The Working Poor, David Shipler reports that in the 2000 presidential election only 38 percent of Americans with incomes less than $10,000 voted compared to 75 percent of those with incomes over $75,000. (278) These sorts of statistics are not limited to 2000. In the six elections from 1980 to 2000, the average voter turnout of people in the bottom fifth of the income quintiles was 53 percent, while the top fifth averaged over 80 percent (â€Å"Election Results†). For the bottom fifth, the average household income was under $11,500 during each election year. The top fifth averaged an income close to $118,000 (DeNavas-Walt, et al.). The 2004 election was no different with 55 percent of the votes cast by people with incomes of $50,000 and up. That means over half of the votes cast were by a group that controls 70 percent of the nation’s wealth. In every election since 1964, when these statistics were first recorded, the South has had a lower voter turnout than the other three major regions. The South has also consistently had the highest poverty rate of the four regions. On average, there is a twenty-five to thirty percentage-point gap between the turnouts of the lowest and highest income quintiles in the United States (Cevrantes and Gluckman). Though it is clear the poor generally don’t vote, the reasons for this are not so clear. Education seems to be biggest factor. Less than 40 percent of citizens without a high school degree voted in the 2000 election, compared with an 80 percent turnout for those with an advanced degree. The percentages rise with more education. A connection to poverty can be drawn when considering that over 13 percent of workers without a high school degree are in poverty, compared with only about 1 percent of workers with a college degree. It should be noted these statistics concern only workers, and not the unemployed. As a United States census report noted, â€Å"Those with a high school education or less were more likely than those with more education to respond that they were not interested in the election or felt their vote would not make a difference.† Even more significant among the poor than the feeling that their vote will not make a difference is the feeling their vote may not be counted. Claims of voting irregularities, true or not, often keep the poor away from the polls. A large bloc of poor Americans disenfranchise themselves out of the fear of being disenfranchised. With a mindset that their vote will just be erased after leaving, the poor avoid

Niccolo Machiavelli Essay

Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher of the Renaissance. He lived from 1496-1527. Niccolo Machiavelli was also a very famous painter in his time. He painted many famous paintings that are seen in museums, books, and many other places. He was also involved in government throughout his life. Niccolo Machiavelli was a painter, political philosopher, Italian historian, an statesman for influenced many political leaders in Europe. Niccolo Machiavelli led a very political life. In 1494, Niccolo Machiavelli became an important diplomat. He spent most of his time over the years writing history, political philosophy, and plays. The Renaissance was a time of political conflict. Niccolo took part in diplomatic missions through France, Germany, and Italy. In later years, he was forced to retirement of the political business. Machiavelli was known as the â€Å"father of modern political theory†. Niccolo Machiavelli had many political writings. Many of Machiavelli’s writings reflected political issues. He wrote about the world around him and his life in the Renaissance. He witnessed many changes in the environment and wrote about them. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote one political treatise titled The Prince. The Prince was written during a time of tragedy in the Renaissance. Many things Machiavelli wrote about had to deal with politics and violence. The Prince was written in 1513. Although it was written then, it was published however until 1532 and Machiavelli’s death. The theme of this book is about preservation of authority and the establishment of it. Because of The Prince, Machiavelli is considered one of the greatest early modern analyzers of the political power. In 1498, Machiavelli served as a civil servant in Florence. Later in 1512, Machiavelli was imprisoned and the republic failed. Machiavelli had many jobs over his lifetime. He was the head of the second chancery in 1498. Niccolo was also the secretary of council and he studied political tactics. He also studied the strength of a nation with only one prince. In 1509, Machiavelli led a small army to free Pisa. Later in his life, for 5 years he worked as a historiographer. Niccolo Machiavelli had hard times in his life. He lost his place in politics and very much wanted it back. When he wrote The Prince, he wrote it to try and regain favoritism by Medici. In the end, Medici didn’t agree with what Machiavelli said in The Prince and ended up rejecting Machiavelli’s proposal to have that job back. Machiavelli also wrote a book titled â€Å"Discourses On Livy†. The book was on Machiavelli’s full political philosophy. Niccolo also wrote a biography on the Life of Castruccio Castracani. He wrote many plays and also many poems. His most famous poem was The Mandrake. The Mandrake was written in 1524. Machiavelli also wrote the History of Florence in 1525. The History of Florence tells about chronicles of the city. Machiavelli also wrote the Art of the War in 1521. That book describes mercenary troops and their lives. Niccolo Machiavelli was a very productive leader. Over all of his tragedies that happened in his life, he still overcame all of it. He worked very hard producing plays that have become very famous over the years. He wrote The Prince, which is a very well populated piece today. Not only did Machiavelli produce plays but he also wrote poems and biographies for people. Many of his quotes that he resighted in The Prince are still remembered today and used greatly. He was also a very significant political leader and went very far in government.

Civil War And Terrorism - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2255 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/05/18 Category History Essay Level High school Tags: Civil War Essay War Essay Did you like this example? The causes of civil war coincide and contrast with the causes of terrorism in a few fundamental ways. The effects of both civil war and terrorism are prevalent and often wide spread because they are rarely contained within the geographical area in which they begin. Neighboring states and other cultural populations are also affected by the results of terrorism and civil wars. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Civil War And Terrorism" essay for you Create order For example, The Irish Republican Army was a group of armed actors in a civil war against Great Britain. With the goal of achieving Irish independence, the IRA employed terrorist actions toward civilians. Many times, the same strategies are used for civil wars and acts of terrorism. However, there are two key differences between groups engaged in civil wars and those involved in terrorist groups. Civil wars are between organized groups who aim to change the government in a profound way. Terrorist groups aim to cause fear and terror among the civilian population. Another key difference between groups that engage in terrorism versus civil wars, is that terrorism groups are much smaller. They are incapable of executing an organized civil war like those in rebel groups. Description To understand the causes of civil war and terrorism one must first understand what those causes are. A civil war is between armed participants who face a conflict within the same state. Civil wars are typically between a government and a rebel group within the state. Somalia has no central government and as a result that country has many groups that face ongoing conflict. To be considered a civil war there must be at least 1,000 battle-related deaths, and those deaths must be endured by all sides. Civil wars have many wide-ranging effects. Civil wars can create large groups of refugees that can burden other states. Civil wars also increase widespread crimes against humanity. The civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo led to millions of deaths as well as a horrendous amount of rape and other human atrocities. In an attempt to end this humanitarian crisis, 20,000 United Nations peacekeepers were sent out. This civil war is a profound example of how civil wars can affect others outside a single state, spilling out of the nations borders and effecting other countries. On the other hand, terrorism is the act of violence or the threat of violence against civilians in order to achieve a political goal. The terrorist goal is to achieve a political aim by way of fear, whereas the goal of rebel forces in a civil war is to defeat the armed forces of the opposing force. The terrorist goal is to attack a targeted civilian population in order to force the acquiescence of a political demand. Without this demand, a terrorist attack would be nothing more than an act of violent criminality. Almost all terrorist attacks take place domestically, rarely crossing national borders. Terrorism and civil wars are sometimes similar in the sense that rebel groups often attack civilians. Both can occur when there is a nonstate actor that has interests that bring them into conflict. The underlying conditions that give rise to a civil war are also similar to those of terrorism. The first cause of a civil war occurs when there is a conflict of interest within the state. The second cause is grievances which can lead to war when certain policies discriminate against members of an interest group. Examples of grievances which could lead to war are differing values between cultural groups, blocking access to jobs and upward mobility, or the denial of services. The third cause is greed. Greed is a desire to control more of the countrys assets or wealth. This often leads to war because groups want more or better access to economic resources such as shares of oil and minerals. Groups also want privileged access to jobs and governmental power which they believe they can achieve through civil war and the eventual armed overthrow of a government. Almost all civil wars are fueled by grievances and greed. Even though terrorism is fueled by similar conditions, there are some differences. One of the goals terrorists try to execute is the overthrow of the government or the annihilation of an opposing group. Since the 1980s, The Shinning Path is a terrorist group that has operated in Peru. They have sought to destabilize the Peruvian government and start a communist revolution. A similar goal often attempted by terrorists is to expel a foreign power from their homeland. Depending on the interest group, this is done in attempt to create a new society b ased upon an economic or religious ideology or to create a homogeneous society free from intruders. As mentioned previously, strategies of civil war and terrorism share a few things in common. A main strategy of civil war is insurgency. Insurgency is when lightly armed units will use guerilla-type attacks against military, governmental, and civilian targets. Terrorist use this strategy as well. Rebel groups will typically attack military bases, government buildings, or population centers. After the attack, rebel groups will hide out in jungles, mountains or other areas so as not to be seen. In fact, Chinese Communist leader, Mao Tse-tung once said that insurgents should swim among people. In other words, they should do their best to blend in. Insurgency is a popular strategy because it is a way to attack another actor that has much stronger military capabilities. The main goal is to try to impose a high cost on the government or create intense political pressure. This is different from the main goal of terrorism, which is to gain something politically. Insurgency is also used to increase the amount of people who may be willing to side with the rebels by addressing the collective action problem. Foreign states that will benefit from the victory of one of the sides will often help by supplying money, arms, training, and sanctuary to their side. An example of this is the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo which involved 25 different rebel groups all aided by eight different countries. These rebel groups are led into a civil war for many reasons. Rebel groups are organized around the interests for which they fight. For example, some rebel groups are motivated by strong religious beliefs. Taking a look at El Salvadors civil war, many peasants joined because they were motivated by a feeling of fighting injustice and a desire to do something meaningful with their lives. Counties are influenced by other factors. The first factor that leads countries into engaging in a civil war is the political institutions and the regime type. If a conflict can be resolved without war that is typically preferred by most countries since war is so costly. Poor countries are more likely to find themselves in a civil war because they do not have strong institutions. Civil wars are also more likely in highly populated countries. This is due to that fact that rebel groups can recruit more people and also hide out among larger populations. Looking back at strategies, terrorist have four common methods. The first method is coercion. Coercion is imposing costs typically by causing civilian casualties or destroying infrastructure. This is very similar to a rebel groups strategy. The goal of a terrorist attack in this case is to change a policy. The second strategy is provocation. This strategy is used in order to generate a response from the targeted government. An example of provocation is the pressure on the Bush Administration to strike back after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. The third strategy is spoiling. This tactic is used to destroy any peace between the target and moderate leadership from the terrorists home society. The final terrorist strategy is out-bidding. Out-bidding occurs when a terrorist group shows its commitment by out doing another group devoted to the same interest. In this case, a group may commit a dramatic attack not only to affect the target but to also show the other group what they are capable of. Analysis The bargaining failures are similar in civil wars and terrorism. In both, there is incomplete information, commitment problems, and indivisibilities. Civil war from incomplete information occurs when the capabilities and resolve cant be determined. For example, it can be hard to estimate effective or strong a rebel group really is. They often take certain measures to make this hard to observe. Commitment problems in civil war can create a long-lasting war when power is changing. An actor cannot credibly commit to not revise any deal made then, so the actor that anticipates growing weaker may want war now. Commitment problems show that economic downturns are associated with higher risk of civil wars. Lastly, war may be inevitable if the conflict is something that is difficult to divide. Territory is often seen as an indivisibility. Russia has fought two civil wars since Chechnya claimed independence. Russia would have been better off letting the Chechens take their land. Instead they partook in a war that costed many lives and also increased terrorist attacks led by Islamic militants. Terrorism is a result of incomplete information because groups often hide within the population. It is difficult to determine a terrorist groups size and capabilities. Typically, terrorist groups are unheard of until after it is known for an attack. Commitment problems are also an issue in terrorist attacks. After an attack, the target will have the organization commit to no violence in the future. If the commitment is not credible, this can prevent the agreement. Successful credibility can be difficult in this situation. The target must trust that the terrorist group will not attack again, and they must also trust that they could defend themselves if they did. Lastly, bargaining will fail if it is not possible to negotiate. Often times, it is seen as impossible to compromise with terrorists since they are considered extremists. Overall, civil wars and terrorism have the same bargaining failures. Civil war and Terrorism both seem to have no clear ending. However, both have a few strategies that can help minimize the damage. Organizations such as the UN can help keep peace within states. But the overall best strategy to help prevent civil wars is changing into a more democratic country. International efforts can also help by resolving commitment problems. Compromises that entail rebels disarming can lead to a commitment issue. If peacekeepers can ensure the safety of disarmed rebels, that can help the problem. International peace can best be achieved by economic and political reconstruction, these strategies will have a long-term effect on preventing civil wars. On the other hand, terrorism will be harder to prevent. As long as extremist, problems of information, and credible commitment exist terrorism will be possible. States can create certain counterterrorist strategies to lessen the damage done by an attack and even lessen the attacks in general. Terrorist groups do not ha ve a clear location which can make retaliation and deterrence tough. Another strategy is preemption. This strategy involves states disrupting or destroying terrorists and their networks before the attack takes place. An example of preemption is the invasion of Afghanistan after the attacks of 9/11. This invasion was not only to retaliate, but to also prevent future attacks happening. The main goal was to capture or kill the leader of the terrorist group. An alternative strategy is taking defensive measures. States can guard against attacks. The united states took this action after the attacks of 9/11. Now national monuments are guarded, and boarder security forces have increased. Defensive measures are not convenient or cheap. All passengers must go through security at airports now. Trucks must face longer delays at borders. Defensive measures can still not guarantee safety but they can help. Criminalization is another strategy. This strategy usually takes place after the attack has already happened. The goal is to arrest terrorist for the attacks in hopes of preventing others from carrying out attacks as well as bringing groups to justice. The last strategy of terrorism is negotiation and compro mise. As mentioned before, terrorist attacks are hard to prevent. Most states are hesitant to compromise with terrorist groups so other groups do not make greater demands. Although in some cases a compromise has been met, terrorist may never get everything they want. Conclusion The causes of civil war and terrorism coincide in many ways as well as contrast in their own ways. Civil wars and terrorism both include violence led by rebel groups and terrorist organizations. Both caused by a conflict of interest and each have their own objectives. Civil wars are usually fought over territory, grievances, or greed. Terrorist attacks are executed over political goals. Insurgency is the main strategy of civil war. The main purpose for this strategy is to impose a cost on the targeted government. Terrorist have four principal strategies; coercion, provocation, spoiling, and out-bidding. Civil wars and terrorism share the same bargaining failures and similar strategies to prevent them from reoccurring. Overall, the best attempt at minimizing civil wars and terrorism is operating as a democratic country. Economic and politically strong countries are at less risk of a civil war because they have more to lose by getting involved in war. The importance of understanding the similarities and differences between civil wars and terrorism is to be able to identify that not all violent acts are terrorist acts. It is also important to understand the causes of both of these violent operations to be able to fight it. It cannot be prevented if it is unclear why it is happening.