Chapter 5: Political Violence

What is Political Violence?

• The state is expected to maintain a monopoly of violence over a territory.
  • Allows them to defend territory, establish domestic order and security.
• Political violence: violence outside of state control that is politically motivated
  • Actions carried out by nonstate actors
  • Political violence is NOT crime.
  • Crime lacks political motivation.

Political Violence: A Subset of Contentious Politics

• Contentious politics: collective struggle carried out to achieve a political goal
• Contentious politics can be violent or nonviolent.
  • Nonviolent activities: sit-ins, protests, strikes
  • Violent activities: revolutions, riots, civil war, terrorism

Why Political Violence?

Three Explanations for Political Violence

• Institutional
• Ideational
• Individual

Institutional Explanations

• The logic
  • Some institutions create violence by excluding, marginalizing, or polarizing populations.
  • Some institutions reduce violence by promoting inclusion.
• “Winner takes all” rules may be especially problematic.
  • Example: Presidentialism
• Can be seen as a quest for the “root source” of political violence
  • Presumes that changing institutions would eliminate need for violence

Ideational Explanations

• Ideational: having to do with ideas
• The logic
  • Ideas set out a worldview, diagnose problems, provide resolutions, and describe the means for achieving goals.
• Fundamentalism and nationalism can inspire violence against out-groups.

Explanations for Political Violence

Individual Explanations

• The logic: Individual experiences drive people to violence.
  • Debate whether its emotion or rational calculations drive violence.
• Emotional approach
  • Individual grievances, humiliation, or alienation as prime motivators
  • Example: Feelings of humiliation motivated Bouazizi’s self-immolation (Tunisia in 2010).
• Rational actor approach
  • Violence is a strategy to achieve goals.
  • Example: ISIS fighters from Tunisia motivated by a paycheck.

Comparing Explanations of Political Violence

Comparing Explanations: Free Will versus Determinism

• Institutional: deterministic; seeing people as shaped and directed by larger structures that they don’t control
• Ideational: lie somewhere in between; ideas are influenced by institutions but are also actively taken up and molded by individuals to justify political violence
• Individual: place their focus squarely on people; they’re the primary makers of violence because they choose to be

Universal vs. Particularistic

• Institutional: particularistic, stressing the unique combination and role of institutions in a given case that is not easily generalized and applied elsewhere
• Ideational: lie somewhere in the middle, generalizing the importance of ideas while noting the distinct lessons that different ideas impart
• Individual: center on personal or psychological attributes common to all humans that can lead to violence

Forms of Political Violence

Two Forms of Violence

• Revolution: public seizure of the state in order to overturn the existing government and regime.
  • Represents an uprising of the masses
  • Why study it?
  • Can transform domestic and international relations
  • Key elements of Revolution:
  • Some element of public participation
  • Goal is to gain control of the state (central government)
  • Often, but not always, violent
• Terrorism
  • Represents conspirational action carried out by small groups
  • Why study it?
  • Less transformative, but poses significant challenge to modern political institutions

A Revolution is Different From a…

• Coup d’état: (military) elites remove a regime and replace it with a new one.
  • Examples: Chile, 1973; Mali, 2012
• Negotiated transition: government and supposition elite plan a transition to a new system.
  • Examples: Chile, 1989; South Africa, 1994
• Secessionist movement: one group seeks local control or independence from the state.
  • Example: South Sudan, 2011

Possible Causes of Revolution: Relative Deprivation

• Relative deprivation model: predicts revolution when public expectations outpace the rate of domestic change
• When is relative deprivation frustration more likely to be triggered?
  • Rapid economic growth creates unmet expectations.
  • Some (ethnic, racial, class) groups are benefitting more than others.
  • Possible examples: Iran, 1979; Egypt, 2011
• Criticism: weak predictability

Possible Causes: Institutional Approach

• Institutional approach: an approach arguing that revolutions require a specific set of conditions
• The conditions creating openings for revolution
  • Competition with rival states betrays regime weakness.
  • Weak(er) states seek to reform to boost their international power.
  • These reforms upset status quo, sowing dissent in elite and discord in masses.
  • Possible examples: France, 1789; Russian Revolution, 1917
• Criticism: neglects role of individuals and ideas

Applying the Theories: Why the 2011 Arab Spring?

• Institutional
  • Repressive states
  • Some recent attempts at reform
• Ideational
  • Mobilizing ideas
• Individual
  • Bouazizi and “dignity”
  • Widespread frustrations (relative deprivation)

Applying the Theories: Why Did Some Revolutions Become Violent?

• Institutional: more militaristic, patrimonial
• Ideational: strength of moderates versus extremist voices
• Individual: Government leaders can choose compromise (peace) or repression (violence).

Shifting Views of Revolution

Terrorism

• Terrorism: the use of violence by nonstate actors against civilians in order to achieve a political goal.
• Key elements:
  • Carried out by nonstate actors; even if it is state-sponsored terrorism
  • State-sponsored terrorism: terrorism supported directly by a state as an instrument of foreign policy
  • State-sponsored terrorism is generally carried out by proxies.
  • Targets are civilians.
  • Has a political goal or intent.

Terrorism is Different From…

• Crime: ordinary or “random” (nonpolitical) violence
• Guerrilla war: a conflict whereby nonstate combatants, who largely abide by the rules of war, target the state
  • Essentially, nonstate actors targeting a state and its agents.
• Human rights violations (a state targeting their own civilians) or state-sponsored war crimes (a state targeting civilians of another state).

Comparing Forms of Violence (Figure 5.2)

Institutional Explanations for Terrorism

Economic

• Some scholars argue that terrorism is triggered by poverty, lack of education, inequality.
• Criticism: mixed empirical evidence

Political

• Terrorism is more common in states with weak capacity and autonomy.
• Terrorism is more common if public participation is weak.
• Terrorism is more common if groups have been excluded from political power.

Ideational Explanations for Terrorism

• Possible ideational motivators
  • Religious ideologies
  • Criticism: All religions have their terrorists.
  • Nihilism
  • Nihilism: a belief that all institutions and values are essentially meaningless and that the only redeeming value a person can embrace is violence
• Alternative view
  • Ideas are a justification for, not a cause of, violence.
  • Other explanations are the real cause; religion is “window dressing.”

Individual Explanations for Terrorism

• The “feelings” motivators:
  • Personal feelings of alienation or humiliation
  • Grievances (relative deprivation), frustrations, or desire for vengeance
• The rational actor motivators:
  • Social benefits of membership
  • Sense of identity
  • Group solidarity
  • Economic beliefs

Does Terrorism Work?

• Terrorists seldom achieve their policy goals.
• But terrorists do have impact.
  • Economy: depresses such things as tourism, foreign direct investment, and stock markets
  • Society: increases anxiety and insecurity
  • Politics: erodes state legitimacy, destabilizes politics
• Terrorism can provoke more conflict.
  • Revolution as a goal of terrorist violence

Political Violence and Religion

Factors that can Transform Religion into Violence

• Religion has reemerged, accompanied by fundamentalism.
  • Fundamentalism does not necessarily entail violence.
• Conditions under which religion can become a source of violence:
  • Hostility to modernity and modernization
  • Belief in “cosmic war”
  • View modern world as marginalizing, dehumanizing believers
  • Often paired with conspiracy theories
  • Messianic, apocalyptic, or utopian belief

All Religions Have Their Terrorists

• Islam: Al Qaeda and ISIS
• Christianity: William Pierce (National Alliance and The Turner Diaries)
  • Inspired Timothy McVeigh (1995 OKC bombing)
• Buddhism: Ashin Wirathu and the 969 Movement

Terrorism or Hate Crime? Political Violence in America

• America has a long history of political violence.
  • Against the government, its institutions, and its civilians.
• Tension over whether to label domestic political violence as “terrorism” or “hate crimes”.
  • Terminology of “hate crime” from civil rights movement of the 1960s
  • Many Americans associate “terrorism” with politics outside of the United States
• The rise of political violence in America, no matter how Americans categorize it, indicates that liberal democracy can produce homegrown terrorists.

Countering Political Violence

…in Democracy

• Democracies are less prone to domestic terrorism and revolution.
  • Participation and inclusion provide nonviolent outlets for frustrations.
• But they may be attractive targets for global actors.
  • Freedoms allow extremist elements
• Examples
  • U.S. September 11 Attacks (Al Qaeda)
  • The 2015 Paris Attacks (ISIS)

When Violence Does Emerge: The Freedom Versus Security Debate

• Under threat, democratic states and citizens may favor limiting civil liberties and increasing state autonomy and capacity.
• United States: significant increases in surveillance state
  • Examples: the PATRIOT Act and NSA wire-tapping
• United Kingdom: legal rights of accused waived
  • Can detain suspects 14 days without charges
  • Can strip terrorism suspects of British citizenship
• France: State of emergency laws lead to warrantless search and seizure.
  • Raids on houses and house arrests without judicial authorization.

…in a Nondemocracy

• Fully authoritarian regimes: low risk of political violence
  • Repression deters collective action.
• Illiberal/transitional regimes: highest risk of violence
  • Participation is broken: lacks nonviolent outlets for frustrations
  • Limited state capacity; repression is less extensive: less deterrence of violence

Comparing Regime Type and Terrorism Risks

Regime Type and Terrorism

In Sum: Meeting the Challenge of Political Violence

Summary

• Different explanations for political violence focus on the role of institutions, ideas, and/or individual characteristics.
• Revolution and terrorism are two distinct but related forms of political violence.
• Terrorists seldom “get what they want” policy-wise, but their actions do significantly impact the state where they carry out their attacks.
• Under certain conditions, any religious belief can motivate political violence.
• Democracies and nondemocracies rely on different tactics (participation versus repression) to reduce terrorism. Illiberal regimes (who lack either option) ar at the highest risk for terrorism.
• For democracies, counterterrorism policies may present a tradeoff between security and freedom.

Key Terms

1. Guerrilla war - a conflict whereby nonstate combatants who largely abide by the rules of war target the state
2. Ideational - having to do with ideas
3. Nihilism - a belief that all institutions and values are essentially meaningless and that the only redeeming value is violence
4. Political violence - violence outside of state control that is politically motivated
5. Relative Deprivation Model - model that predicts revolution when public expectations outpace the rate of domestic change
6. Revolution - public seizure of the state in order to overturn the existing government and regime
7. State-sponsored terrorism - terrorism supported directly by a state as an instrument of foreign policy
8. Terrorism - the use of violence by nonstate actors against civilians in order to achieve a political goal