Civil Unrest

As all of my friends know, I’m a political junkie. Each day, I wake up excited—not because I’m naturally an upbeat person, but because I know there’s a new episode of The Daily from The New York Times waiting for me to listen to. I recently put on a new episode and was not happy to hear the hosts describing the inevitability of “outbreaks of political violence” if Donald Trump loses on November 5th. I understand how some people have arrived at this conclusion. But I also don’t accept that conclusion, and the rest of us shouldn’t either.

Even before two people attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump, national security experts and law enforcement were warning that the United States needed a plan to contend with the possibility of political violence on Election Day.

Now, in the final weeks of the campaign, researchers have just published new findings about the social lives of people who are likely to endorse using political violence, and be willing to use it themselves.

Fights have broken out at polling stations and election workers have gone through active shooter drills.

There have been threats to blow up political offices and ballot boxes have been set on fire. 

Before what could be the closest presidential election in history, staff trusted with overseeing the vote on Tuesday are already facing chaos and bracing for violence.

Americans are living through an extraordinary era of political violence. For years, political violence has been on the rise across the political spectrum—not just according to anecdotal examples but also based on rigorous long-term studies of a representative sample of U.S. citizens. Indeed, support for political violence has now become “normal,” at least when people are asked about the use of violence to achieve political goals that they also endorse.

It should not be difficult to condemn, without equivocation, the violence we have seen on our streets in the past week. The perpetrators belong behind bars.

For the line between civilisation and chaos is thin, and public order is a public good too often taken for granted. Once lost, it can be difficult for the police to regain control, which is why the response to disorder must always be unequivocal and uncompromising, swift and tough.

Unusual for the time of year, the radiant sun was setting over the picturesque city. It was the early evening of 5 April 1992, and while some Sarajevo’s residents were listening to the opera, lovers could be seen strolling along the Miljacka river. The following morning, the city woke up to bodies in the streets.

Britain is recovering from a weekend of protests, riots and right-wing thuggery. Having enjoyed a month-long honeymoon in which he visited the Paris Olympics, hobnobbed with global leaders and announced an ambitious agenda, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is now trying to reassert not just public order but public confidence, delivering an address to the nation on Sunday and chairing an emergency Cobra meeting on Monday.

Riots have broken out across the U.K. in recent days over false rumors spread online that an asylum seeker was responsible for a mass stabbing at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded. 

The suspect has been identified as 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana, who was born in Wales to Rwandan parents.

Bangladesh’s Supreme Court on Sunday rolled back most of the controversial quotas on government jobs which sparked violent protests.

Under the quota system, some 30% of sought-after civil service jobs are reserved for relatives of veterans who fought in Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan in 1971 - with many of the country’s contemporary political elite related to that generation.