POLSCIE ELECTIVE - Political Dynamics

Lesson 1. Political Systems and Political Change

Vincent U. Pagador
Instructor

Political Dynamics introduces both theories and concepts that affect the political system.
Specifically, the key word in the title of the course itself, dynamics, suggests that it deals with changes
that happen within the “political”, meaning, driven by the forces or factors that take place in the same
environment, in other words, what affects it internally. However, confining these factors from the
inside i.e., only within a single political system implies a unilinear perspective, where change is
merely a shift from an old to a new, simple to a possibly simpler dynamics, as if nothing is actually
occurring. To illustrate, consider a player engaging in a single game with varied self-modified
mechanics to entertain himself; this scenario would be uninteresting. Therefore, political dynamics is
also bringing in the interplay between political systems and how they affect each other’s political
landscapes.
Accessible definition of political dynamics refer to it as the complex interactions and changes
within political systems, including the relationships among different actors, institutions, and
ideologies. These dynamics shape how power is distributed and exercised, influencing both
governance and the behavior of political entities over time. To simplify this, political dynamics
studies how people, groups, and ideas interact with each other in politics. These interactions change
over time, and they affect how power is shared and used. They also affect how governments are run
and how politicians behave.
In this respect, the study of political change follows that we will look at the engines or sources of
change in the political system, but to achieve that, we are first to address the fundamental question,
where does politics take place?
The inevitability of change is present in all fields of study, including politics. But political
dynamics is not limited to the consideration of change alone, but rather to the nexus of stability and
change, the intricacies, the chaos, and the often confusing and contradictory patterns observed in the
political environment.
We address this question by starting with the definition of politics. Political scientists and scholars
agree that the word is a ‘loaded’ term, meaning that it can be defined in several related ways and has a
number of acceptable or legitimate meanings, but above all, as Andrew Heywood put it, it is a social
activity in which people make, preserve, and amend the general rules by which they live. We will use
this definition of the discipline as basis, because essentially we will immerse ourselves in the political
environment and observe the conditions under which the political system operates; besides, this
definition leads us to the answer to the pending question: politics as a social activity means that the
same takes place in society. Of course, politics does not exist in an isolated field, but can only be
understood in a wider social context involving mutual interaction among political animals.
This also means that we take politics beyond its conventional position of being interested in power
or the state. Instead, we are conceptualizing politics as a dynamic, active process, characterized by
deliberate action. Politics as a mode of doing, e.g., meeting, proposing, speaking, inquiring,
deliberating, negotiating, debating, acting, deciding, voting, etc., or perhaps also listening, feeling,
hoping, accepting, rejecting, etc., all for what? Lasswell says so: who gets what, when, how,
understanding the distribution of power, the timing of actions, and the manner in which they are
executed.
The approach in political dynamics may not always be systematic, as patterns may also be
interpreted based on observable, unspecified frequencies using educated guesses or assumptions. For
example, in party politics, when members shift from one political party to another—which,
incidentally, has happened so frequently in every election cycle in the Philippines—it may be
assumed that the shift is caused by perceived voter preference or the ‘quality’ of the members of the
party, whether of the original or the shifting party; or it may be the result of a realignment of the
ideals of a candidate. Political Dynamics does not necessarily go out to survey in order to obtain a
definite, i.e. personal (and therefore accurate) result, but merely observes and points out ‘data’ from
free-flowing political sources. These are then categorized into patterns and analyzed in relation to
each other to arrive at a particular point.
Given this, it is already established that the environment we are observing is society itself, where
the ‘political’ is present in all its facets. Going beyond the boundaries of political theories and
concepts, we go further with politics as a branch of sociology (political sociology), as it is a part of
social studies. This branch of sociology studies different political moments of society. It includes the
study of different political ideologies (views), their origin, development and functions. It is also here
that different political parties are considered as social institutions, as they are a part of the social
system. The distinction between sociology of politics and political sociology will be introduced.

The Sociology of Politics and Political Sociology

The following are from Giovanni Sartori’s paper, explaining that the phrase “sociology of politics”
indicates a subfield, a subdivision of the overall field of sociology—like sociology of religion,
sociology of leisure, and the like. The same asserted that by saying sociology of politics, it must be
made clear that the framework, the approach, or the focus of inquiry is sociological.
The term “political sociology,” on the other hand, is ambiguous. It may or may not be used as a
synonym for ‘sociology of politics’. When political sociology is used, the focus or approach of
inquiry is generally left unspecified. Since political phenomena are the concern of many disciplines,
this ambiguity proves to be a serious drawback.
The distinction itself, particularly with that of political sociology, is dynamic. Political sociology is
an interdisciplinary hybrid attempting to combine social and political variables. The sociology of
politics is, on the other hand, a sociological reduction of politics.
Nevertheless, political dynamics are studied with society in mind. The distinction between the
sociology of politics and political sociology may not be strictly observed, although it is not entirely
disregarded. Essentially, our focus is on the sociological aspects or factors that influence political
change, regardless whether the approach is sociological or not. These factors may include economic,
cultural, religious, and other elements.

Political Change Defined

The concept of political change is often linked to the notion of regime change, which refers to the
development of a political system (regime) from its current state to a more or less ideal (or perfect)
form. Aristotle’s idea of political change can be interpreted as an obligation to pursue the “good,” and
thus any regime that does not embody the ideal must undergo a change in its form until it attains an
ideal state, that is, the form that is most capable of promoting the common good or the fulfillment of
the idea of living a virtuous life.
In political science, the phenomenon of political change is often treated as a problem. This is
primarily likely due to the fact that such change is frequently associated with instability, which is in
turn driven by a variety of factors, including globalization, industrialization, population growth, and
international tensions. Some scholars have explored the role of internal warfare in leading to the
collapse of governments. The Philippine Revolutionary Army’s establishment of the First Philippine
Republic, with a constitution generally recognized as the most important document that led to its
recognition as the first proper constitutional republic in Asia; the formation of the Philippine
Commonwealth during the period of American occupation, the subsequent takeover by the Japanese,
who effectively controlled the Philippines as their puppet state; the ouster of the dictator Ferdinand
 Marcos Sr. and the return of democracy following the bloodless People
Power Revolution are in a sense manifestations of regime change.
Gabriel Almond wrote that in political history, Plato and Aristotle
placed political stability and change at the center of their theories. Their
conception of the three pure forms of government—aristocracy,
monarchy, and democracy—the principles embodied in these forms, the
causes of their perversion, and the sequences of change they are said to
undergo has been one of the most influential conceptual schemes in the
history of political theory.
Almond defined political change in a special sense, going beyond the
reference to the general phenomenon of change in the sense that all
political systems undergo change. He defined political change as the
Gabriel A. Almond
Political Scientist acquisition by a political system of some new capability, or what he
called ‘systemic changes’.

Almond’s Systemic Changes

We call each one of these changes ‘systemic’ because the acquisition of the new capability is
associated with fundamental changes in political culture and structure:

1. Integration and Mobilization Capability - when a tribal elite develops an officialdom capable
of penetrating the tribal villages, extracting tribute and manpower and changes systemically from
its essentially kinship and religious cohesion. The development of the integrative capability is
accompanied by the development of a sense of national identity and the emergence of a
specialized central bureaucracy.
2. International Accommodative Capability - when a tribal political system uses the resources
which it can now mobilize as a means of accommodating itself in its relations to other political
systems in the international arena and changes systemically by acquiring the familiar attributes of
the nation-state like an effective internal political integration, territorial boundaries, and more or
less regularized exchanges with other nation-states. The development of an international
accommodative capability is associated with the development of a more open, cosmopolitan
culture supportive of regular exchanges across national boundaries, and the further development
of bureaucracy—foreign offices, diplomats, armed services.
3. Participation Capability - when a political system develops a culture and a structure which
enables its population or a substantial part of it to participate in the recruitment of elites and
formulation of public policy and changes systemically from a form of authoritarian state to a
participant or democratic state. The development of a participation capability is associated with
the development and spread of a political culture of civic obligation and competence and the
elaboration of the various components of the democratic infrastructure—political parties,
associational interest groups, and autonomous media of communication.
4. Welfare or Distribution Capability - when a political system develops a capability of
penetrating the economy and social structure in such a way as to respond regularly or recurrently
to demands for the distribution of the social product. The development of a distribution capability
is associated with the development and widespread dissemination of a welfare culture; further
special bureaucratic changes, and emergence of a pattern of accommodation between the political
structure and process, and the social structure and process.
Reading Requisite 1
The State and Political System
From Understanding Conflict and War
Volume 2: The Conflict Helix, Chapter 31
By R. J. Rummel

Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with
a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by
the few.
DAVID HUME, First Principles of Government

Types of Political Systems

Three types of societies manifesting three forms of power comprise three general social structures
of expectations. My special concern is with such societies in the form of states. A state is a formal
group that is sovereign over its members and occupies a well defined territory. It is the formal
apparatus of authoritative roles and law norms through which that sovereignty is exercised.
The state, however, should not be confused with a specific balance of powers a particular status
quo, a government. Governments may effect massive change in laws and roles while the state remains
the same. Changed are the civil order, the polity, the particular law norms and authoritative roles
through which the elite manifest their interest.
At the outset, then, the political system of a state must be distinguished from the state itself. A
political system consists of the formal and informal structures which manifest the state’s sovereignty
over a territory and people. It is the civil aspect of statehood. But a state through its lifetime may have
many different political systems, as have China, Russia, and France. As the political elite exercise
more or less coercive power, we can call a state more or less powerful. As ideologies grant a political
system more or less power, we can call these ideologies more or less statist. But this is not to confuse
the state as a sovereign group with the particular balance through which this sovereignty is manifest.1
With this in mind, let us focus on the types of political systems. Although there is a tendency in
modern American political science to treat the political system as an abstract one of inputs and
outputs, or of functions and institutions (Easton, 1965), we should not forget that a political system
constitutes a balance among competing interests, capabilities, and wills, a specific status quo. And this
is a balance among individuals. A specific political system is a particular definition of authoritative
roles and law norms and an allocation of rights and duties historically determined through conflict, a
balancing of powers. Those who fill these roles, who have the right to command others, are the
political elite.
Clearly, many different balances can be struck, as manifested by such varied polities as the United
States, Japan, France, China, India, Spain, and Jordan. But these balances of power governing the
state share some communalities and vary on certain significant characteristics.2
One characteristic is the openness of the authoritative roles to change in incumbency and the law
norms to change in substance. That is, does the status quo itself grant members of the state the right to

1 In treating the state in terms of a balance of powers, where a particular balance constitutes the political system, I am in line with the
conflict of interests view in political science. For Plato, Rousseau, and Locke the state had an end; for Hegel, a destiny. It had a public
interest beyond the particularistic concerns of its citizens. But beginning with Machiavelli, the state was also analyzed as a power structure,
as a problem of power and order without regard to any ultimate ends of the state. Some, such as Hobbes and Bentham, combined the two
approaches and saw the purpose of state power as regulating the conflict of diverse interests.

But to Marx, Engels, and such modern political theorists as Harold Lasswell and Robert Dahl, the state is simply a balancing of interests, a
conflict of interests, a political process. The state has no public interest as such. It has only particularistic interests associated with a
particular balance of powers.

2 Of the many works on comparative political systems, I have found Finer (1971) most helpful. My discrimination of political characteristics
reflects his survey, without following it in detail.
compete for elite status and to change the fundamental laws governing the state? Are there freedom of
political opposition and competition for power? For an open system such freedom is statewide. A
closed system, however, legally or customarily3 insulates authoritative roles and law norms from
change by the non-elite.
The open-closed characteristic is used broadly to distinguish political systems, as between liberal
democracies or polyarchies on the one hand, and dictatorships, autocracies, or totalitarian systems on
the other. But this is a characteristic and not a dichotomy. The right of involvement of the people in
changing the system is a spectrum. For some states this right may involve full representation through
the power to initiate or directly approve laws, as in Switzerland. Or, as in the United States, the mass
may have the power to control the elite through the right to elect or reject their incumbency and by
opposition to elite-policies, as through interest groups. In some states, such as Spain, the people can
only produce change or opposition through communal groups like the church, which are participants
in the political system.
A second characteristic distinguishes the degree to which the political system intervenes in the
society. A measure of this group-autonomy characteristic is the freedom from elite commands and
law norms that diverse groups have in their activities. Does the political system control or intervene in
the church, family, university, and private employment? At one end are ideal political systems which
exercise a regulative-procedural control over society, leaving the activities of groups largely free from
political intervention. At the other end are political systems which leave no group immune from
control by the state’s elite.
A third characteristic involves the bases of the law norms. These may be traditional, adhering to
custom and consensual norms and mores, or they may be positivistic, determined to satisfy a
particular need or demand or plan. This is the normative characteristic.
The final characteristic defines the interests of the elite. Elite goals generally can be classified as
three: maintenance of traditions or backward-looking; representing popular interests or present goals;
or reconstructing society, or future oriented. This is the goal characteristic.
These open-closed, group-autonomy, normative, and goal characteristics provide us with a way of
discriminating among pure political types in terms of their profiles. One type is the libertarian
political system, which is an open system, with virtually complete group autonomy, customary law,
and present goals. Laws are limited to a few (by virtue of group autonomy and openness) customary
principles and rights, with the judiciary limited to matching these principles to concrete cases. The
goals of the elite are representational, fixed to present popular interests and needs insofar as they do
not conflict with traditional rights and principles (e.g., sanctity of private property and contracts,
freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and so on).
A second pure type is the authoritarian political system. It is closed, with authoritative political
positions open to only a few by virtue of birth or other ascribed status, and based on customary law.
Groups are autonomous so long as they do not try to alter the traditional status quo, and the elite’s
goals are concerned with conserving traditions.
A third pure type is the totalitarian political system. It is closed and customary law is permitted
only insofar as it does not interfere with the elite’s interests. Law is generally positivist, constructed to
satisfy the elite’s future oriented goals, and laws are seen as a measure to achieve some reconstruction
of society. Groups have no autonomy.

3A political system may formally be open, but customarily closed in the control exercised by the elite. For example, the powers granted the
republics and representatives by the Soviet federal constitution are considerable, but in practice the coercive power of the central state
apparatus over the republics has been absolute.
 Most political systems are a mixture of these types.4 The United States comprises more a
libertarian system, but increasingly is oriented in the totalitarian direction as the modern welfare state
and the political elites, with their mixed present and future goals, intervene in the activities of all
groups. England, in which loss of group autonomy and the reconstruction of society in some futurist’s
image has gone much further, reflects even more of a libertarian-totalitarian mixture. Then there is
totalitarian-authoritarian Syria or Egypt, and libertarian-authoritarian Brazil or Lebanon. Recognizing
that all contemporary empirical political systems reflect such mixtures, some nonetheless closely
approximate the pure types. Thus, we can exemplify the libertarian type by Switzerland and West
Germany, the traditional by Saudi Arabia and Emperor Selassie’s Ethiopia, and the totalitarian by
Communist China and the Soviet Union.

The Political Triangle: Systems and Formulas

The open-closed, normative, group-autonomy, and goal

characteristics of political systems are not independent. An open
system and group autonomy are closely related, although not
necessarily so (a majoritarian system could impose tight controls
over all groups, as in wartime). Moreover, a traditional law system
and group autonomy severely limit the ability of an elite to
implement future goals. In fact, empirically we should find that these
four characteristics define three points—libertarian, authoritarian,
and totalitarian—of a political triangle in a two-dimensional political
space, as shown in Figure 31.1.
Theoretically, no political system is both totalitarian and
authoritarian. As the elite become more future oriented (as in many
contemporary states undergoing forced modernization or development) and allow less freedom of
group autonomy, traditions are increasingly ignored. Precedent, custom, and informal norms often are
hindrances to reconstruction and are ignored or altered through mass campaigns, as in the vast
enforced cultural changes in China and the anti-Confucian crusade.
This political triangle also represents the major political ideologies or formulas. Often ideologies
are placed on a single left-right dimension, ranging from communism, democratic socialism (leftism),
liberalism (welfare), libertarianism (nineteenth-century liberalism), conservatism (rightism), and
fascism. Capitalism is always difficult to place on such a popular
continuum, since it is conceived variously as nineteenth-century
liberalism (competitive capitalism), as encompassing both kinds of
liberalism, or as involving everything to the right of democratic
socialism. This ideological spectrum is misleading, for it separates
formulas with similar characteristics (both conservatives and
liberals are for civil rights; communism and fascism at the
antipodes have more in common with each other than with the
center formulas). Moreover, where would anarchism fit?
Figure 31.2 reorders these formulas according to the space
defined by the political triangle, which has now been rotated to sit
on its base. Libertarianism is the political formula for those

4As to which types constitute the mixture and the degree of overlap, many different subtypes of political systems can be specified. For
example, and utilizing Finer’s (1971) classification, we could define direct or indirect military, dynastic, facade-democratic, quasi-
democratic, totalitarian, stable liberal-democratic, or unstable liberal-democratic systems. Or an alternative classification could be
Coleman’s (1960), which discriminates among systems that are political, tutelary, terminal, or colonial democracies; modernizing, colonial
and racial, conservative, or traditional oligarchies.

Such detailed classifications are beyond my purpose here, which is to seek that level of classification best enabling me to discriminate and
understand types of societal conflict.
opposed to state power. Libertarians want to be free to do as they please; if a political system has any
function it is the minimal one of preventing people from hurting each other and of maintaining basic
civil freedoms. They range from the anarchists who feel all government can be eliminated,5 to the
conservative libertarians or classical liberals who argue that government needs to deal with so-called
externalities or neighborhood effects, such as pollution, flood control, national defense, or crime.
The welfare or new deal liberal marks the division between libertarianism and socialism. While
fearing too much government and desiring to maintain group autonomy, he believes that government
has an essential role in regulating the economic marketplace and promoting social justice or equality.
Thus, he recommends massive government health and welfare programs as the best way to help the
poor, the deprived, and the disadvantaged, and promotes large-scale regulation of business activity to
ensure the best (most just) operation of society. Welfare liberals stand at the threshold of socialism.
Their programs are socialist in goals (social reconstruction) and norms (positivist), without involving
government nationalization.
Socialism is the complete management of the economy and public ownership of large economic
organizations for some future goal, usually development, equality, and social reconstruction. To
achieve this goal, society is in effect turned into a hierarchical coercive organization. Democratic
socialists believe that socialism and an open political system with representational mechanisms and
political competition are compatible. Nonetheless, democratic socialism severely limits or
extinguishes group autonomy (such as through nationalization) and tightly regulates individual
freedom (as the freedom to contract or exchange).6
The natural limit of socialism is communism. Whether in its applied Marxist-Leninist, Titoist or
Maoist variety, it is the totalitarian imposition of socialist ideals over all groups and activities.
Communists believe that by proper education, by reconstructing society in the socialist framework, by
emphasizing community work and values, justice is promoted and a truly new person is created.
Fascism, the belief in the nation, the state, lies at the threshold between socialism and
authoritarianism.7 The emphasis is on the state above all, and its actualization through the leader who
will manifest the will of the nation, its traditions, its blood, its yolk. Society is managed and all groups
are controlled for the ends of the state. The future goal is state power, and justice lies in the
manifestation of the true nation. In this sense fascism is traditional, emphasizing a will-to-power of
cultural values and ideals over competitors.
The dynastic formula is the belief that a political system should adhere to traditions and custom
and that the central power should lie in the hands of a family or blood line endowed with the
responsibility for maintaining such tradition. Government ought to be authoritarian, in that elite
positions are limited to those with certain ascribed characteristics and elite policies, but outside these
limits people and groups are free to pursue their interests.
Finally, the conservative lies at the threshold between libertarian and traditional formulas. The
conservative wishes an open political system with group autonomy, but he also desires to imbed that
system in traditional values. The job of government is to maintain such traditional norms and values
while refraining from intervening in society to pursue social justice or reconstruction.

5 There are contemporary libertarians who argue that individual interests and justice will be better served by eliminating government
altogether. See Rothbard (1962, 1970), who is a professional economist, and Tuccille (1970).

I am concerned here only with anarcho-libertarians. Anarcho-communists who wish to eliminate all government and private property are
either libertarians, if they want to do this through communal living, or totalitarians, if they see a dictatorship of the people or proletariat as
the means. See LeFevre (1965), who discusses the confusing meanings of anarchism, and proposes autarkism as the term to cover anarcho-
libertarianism.

6 “What the foregoing argument suggests, perhaps, is that socialist egalitarianism is not readily compatible with a pluralist political order of
the classic western type. Egalitarianism seems to require a political system in which the state is able continually to hold in check those social
and occupational groups which, by virtue of their skills or education or personal attributes, might otherwise attempt to stake claims to a
disproportionate share of society’s rewards” (Parkin, 1971, p. 183).

7 I am using the term generically to cover a type of formula. It would include Mussolini’s fascism, Hitler’s national socialism, and Peronism,
for example.
 The conservative and welfare liberal both share a belief in civil rights and a regulative, interventive
role for government. They disagree on the purposes of such a role. Welfare liberals want government
to intervene at the group level to assure proper or best functioning of society (read economy). Thus,
farm subsidies, independent regulatory commissions, and antitrust laws. But individual or private
relationships, such as gambling, prostitution, or dope, should be relatively free from political
interference. However, these are precisely the areas in which the conservatives want government to
intervene to maintain decency and morality (read traditions). The moral law should be maintained, but
insofar as the behavior of groups, the realm of contracts and exchange, government has no right to
intervene outside of assuring private property and contractual rights.
The welfare liberal favors intervention in the marketplace but not in private morality, while the
conservative favors intervention in private morality but not the marketplace. The libertarian opposes
intervention in either case, except perhaps for preserving basic rights (even this function is denied by
the anarchist). The communist favors intervention in both cases in order to create a new society. The
fascist believes in intervention in both cases in order to aggrandize state power and enhance true
national virtues and traditions. And the authoritarian favors intervention in both cases if necessary to
maintain tradition, but in practice will leave both spheres alone as long as customary norms and
values are not violated.
Such are the major contemporary formulas that compete for our dedication and aim at our sense of
justice. The formulas are congruent with the political systems we have discussed, as shown in Figure
31.2. Anarchism (anarcho-libertarianism) is an anti-political system formula that is consistent with the
distrust of government and attempts to keep government limited through checks and balances and
civil rights. Indeed, the founders of the American Constitution can properly be classed as conservative
libertarians. Liberal democracies, with the emphasis on classical liberalism, openness, and group
autonomy, with the belief in the maximum freedom of the individual from government control, are
libertarian. Totalitarian systems, in their total control over a society in pursuit of future goals and their
subordination of individual and group autonomy to those ends, are appropriately at the socialist
corner. Finally, authoritarian systems with their emphases on maintaining traditions surely reflect a
dynastic formula.

Political Systems and Societies

Three societies—exchange, authoritative and coercive—have

been discussed as pure types which reflect the major forms of
power underlying the structures of expectations encompassing
society. I have also discussed three kinds of political systems
which constitute the balance of powers governing the state. The
state is a particular kind of society, a group sovereign over a
specific territory, and the balance of powers manifesting this
sovereignty is the political system.
The political system may not encompass all of society, and
indeed may be restricted to a limited sphere. Nonetheless, the type
of political system and type of society are congruent. The political
system is an aspect of the social field and as that field (or antifield)
manifests a particular form of power, the political system will be
its image. Consequently, we can overlay the ideal societies shown
in Figure 30.1 (from Chapter 30 of the Book) by the political triangle and formulas displayed in
Figure 31.2. This is done in Figure 31.3.
The intermediary points on the triangle’s sides reflect the overlap between the three types of
societies, and the pure types themselves are manifested in the three major types of political systems. A
communist system comprises an antifield: a coercive society organized to achieve a future goal. A
dynastic system is part of an authoritative field, wherein reigns authoritative power based on a
fundamental cultural legitimacy. And a libertarian system comprises an exchange field in which
people are free to adjust their positive interests.

Summary

In summary, I have continued to emphasize power as the basis for social relations and, particularly
in dealing with individuals in their structures of expectations at the societal level, three kinds of power
balances: exchange, authoritative, and coercive. Then I examined one kind of society, that formal
social group we call a state, and the specific types of political systems--structures of expectations--
that authoritatively govern it.
I argued that political systems can be characterized as open or closed, as allowing or controlling
group autonomy, as normatively based, or as past, present, or future oriented. These characteristics
define a two-dimensional political space in which three types of political systems form a triangular
relation ship: libertarian systems, authoritarian systems, and totalitarian systems. We can further refine
this triangle according to contemporary political formulas and locate on it anarchism, welfare
liberalism, conservatism, communism, fascism, and dynasticism.
This triangle represents the political systems of states. But as a balance of powers general to
society, each also reflects the over-all structures of expectations constituting different societies. Thus,
the different types of political systems are congruent with the different types of social systems.
So much has been groundwork. Now to turn to societal conflict and violence.