Long Live Life
Long Live Life
Internal Repression and External War:
An Analysis of the Function of State Executions
Following widespread repression of protests and mass arrests, reports have emerged of at least eleven executions carried out, along with an unspecified number of individuals awaiting imminent execution. This article adopts a critical and structural approach to examine the relationship between intensified internal repression and the onset of war. It argues that, in such contexts, state executions function not merely as judicial measures, but as political mechanisms for consolidating power amid multilayered crises.
The intensification of political repression alongside rising military tensions is a phenomenon observed in many political systems during times of crisis. In this context, the use of the death penalty—as the most extreme form of state violence—takes on particular significance. The central question of this article is how recent executions can be understood within a broader framework of power relations, legitimacy crises, and wartime conditions.
Execution as a Tool of Social Control
Within this framework, execution is not simply a penal instrument; it performs a function that extends beyond individual punishment. Especially during periods of unrest, it operates as a means of generating public fear and containing collective protest.
As social discontent grows, states resort to overt forms of violence to redefine the boundaries of power and restrict the possibility of resistance. In this sense, execution constitutes a “political message” aimed not only at the condemned individual, but at society as a whole.
The Link Between Internal Repression and Wartime Conditions
The outbreak or escalation of war often enables states to shift the political environment toward securitization. Within such a climate, many repressive measures are justified under the pretext of “national security.”
War, as a state of exception, allows for:
• An increased societal tolerance for violence
• The framing of internal dissent as a threat
• The intensified use of coercive instruments
Within this framework, executions must be understood as part of a broader strategy in which external war and internal repression operate simultaneously.
Crisis of Legitimacy and Escalation of Violence
One of the defining features of political systems in crisis is the erosion of legitimacy and the widening gap between state and society. In such conditions, governments turn to hard power instruments to maintain internal cohesion and prevent the spread of unrest.
Recent executions can be analyzed within this context, where:
• Economic and social grievances are intensifying
• Structures of political representation are weakening
• Opportunities for peaceful participation are increasingly constrained
As a result, state violence emerges not as an exception, but as a mechanism of survival.
Social and Human Consequences
The Continuation of executions and repression under wartime conditions carries profound consequences for society. These include:
• The spread of fear and social distrust
• The weakening of collective solidarity
• The expansion of cycles of violence
Moreover, such dynamics can obstruct peaceful avenues for change and contribute to the radicalization of conflicts.
Final Analysis
An analysis of recent executions demonstrates that these acts cannot be separated from their broader political and social context. The link between internal repression and wartime conditions reflects a pattern in which states, in managing crises, rely on a combination of domestic violence and external tension.
In the face of this trajectory, reaffirming fundamental human values—such as the right to life, peace, and freedom—is essential. Opposition to war and to state executions is not merely a moral stance; it is part of a broader effort to open new horizons for human and social life.
No to executions. Freedom for political prisoners. Long live life.
No to reactionary war. No to monarchy. No to the execution-driven Islamic regime. Long live peace.
Long live freedom, bread, housing, independence, and council-based democracy.
Naser Kamali
London — 4 April 2026
دیدگاهتان را بنویسید