Did I imagine this definition of terrorism?
December 9, 2014 6:12 AM Subscribe
I'm sure I heard somewhere that one definition of terrorism includes the criterion that the perpetrators must have a vote in the country where they live, the idea being that those who don't have a vote are freedom fighters, whereas those who can vote cannot justify acts of aggression because they have a democratic means of recourse and are therefore terrorists. Except that I now discover that I might have dreamed the whole thing. Is this ever used as a definition of terrorism? If so, which individuals or organisations have used it?
Poli Sci major here. Different parties will promote different definitions of "terrorism" to suit their own agendas. Broadly speaking, if I recall correctly the state of Academic discussions from my college days, the more precise/uncolored term is "violence by nonstate actors" which withholds judgement.
The "vote" criteria, while convenient, ignores many subtleties of disenfranchisement. In Northern Ireland, for example, minority Catholics were not restrained from participating in elections (unless my grasp of that history is dead wrong) and were still oppressed by the majority Protestant establishment to the extent that the IRA enjoyed widespread Catholic support through decades of vicious violence.
There are many cases where "elections" is not the same thing as "empowerment." Not every elected government retains its perceived legitimacy, regardless of how open the franchise is.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 7:55 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
The "vote" criteria, while convenient, ignores many subtleties of disenfranchisement. In Northern Ireland, for example, minority Catholics were not restrained from participating in elections (unless my grasp of that history is dead wrong) and were still oppressed by the majority Protestant establishment to the extent that the IRA enjoyed widespread Catholic support through decades of vicious violence.
There are many cases where "elections" is not the same thing as "empowerment." Not every elected government retains its perceived legitimacy, regardless of how open the franchise is.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 7:55 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
Upon further contemplation: If my memory is accurate, the "terrorism" label was judged on three criteria: 1) The legitimacy of the actor (Governments have a certain presumption of legitimacy, non-state organizations do not); 2) The legitimacy of the target (military or active combatants are considered more legitimate in general than orphanages, hospitals, or members of the public attending religious services or markets). 3) In the case of nonstate violence, what is the agenda/objective of the responsible group? If they are using violence to promote a political outcome, that's more terrorist than if the violence serves to further a criminal conspiracy. In the case of State violence, does the violence promote stability and security, or merely instill fear in the population?
My larger point is, simple single-criteria analyses do not do justice to the phenomenon.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 8:11 AM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
My larger point is, simple single-criteria analyses do not do justice to the phenomenon.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 8:11 AM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes, BigLankyBastard points out the subtleties that make hanging terrorism on a peg like being able to vote difficult.
posted by Fukiyama at 8:19 AM on December 9, 2014
posted by Fukiyama at 8:19 AM on December 9, 2014
Having grown up in Northern Ireland and heard the "freedom fighter v terrorist" argument many times I've never heard of this particular distinction (which of course is not to say that it doesn't exist). Being able to vote for a system which itself is deemed oppressive doesn't seem logically to disqualify a person/group from the "freedom fighter" descriptor.
(Not to derail, but the IRA had widespread Republican support rather than Catholic support which are not the same thing. While Republicans are overwhelmingly Catholics, many Catholics are not Republicans)
posted by billiebee at 10:35 AM on December 9, 2014
(Not to derail, but the IRA had widespread Republican support rather than Catholic support which are not the same thing. While Republicans are overwhelmingly Catholics, many Catholics are not Republicans)
posted by billiebee at 10:35 AM on December 9, 2014
Well, in one sense, that's a very statist view of terrorism, and pursuant to that particular bias, it isn't hard to find governments and leaders using similar arguments.
One discussion I found is in Skirmishes at the Edge of Empire: The United States and International Terrorism by David Tucker. Describing, I suppose sympathetically, an American viewpoint, with language deriving from the Declaration of Independence:
The echoes include the fact that in Shultz's era he was often in sticky situations with regard to US allies who were widely regarded as illegitimate. There was, however, a wave of democratization, with countries like South Korea and Chile throwing off years-long dictatorships and quickly defining themselves as open societies and fully-fledged multi-party democracies. (Arguably, US "legitimacy" rhetoric and attitudes may have played a role, but let's allow these people their agency.) During the Bush administration this took on a messianic cast and supposedly a duty we had to democratize (e.g. Iraq) whether it was ready or not. Time will tell whether the heavier-handed approach worked better than the soft-power/laissez-faire end of things with the Arab Spring (or, indeed, either). But the question does hang in the air and I don't thing you're wrong to perceive it.
posted by dhartung at 9:24 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
One discussion I found is in Skirmishes at the Edge of Empire: The United States and International Terrorism by David Tucker. Describing, I suppose sympathetically, an American viewpoint, with language deriving from the Declaration of Independence:
Governments that are representative of the wishes of their citizens are not justifiably the targets of political violence. Such violence used against them, even if for a political purpose, is rightly classified as illegitimate. If you can vote, yet throw a bomb, you are a terrorist. Violence used against a tyrannical government, on the other hand, should not be considered illegitimate because the laws of the government in question are themselves illegitimate, not having been established with the consent of the governed, and the subjects of such a government are right to resist it. If you cannot vote and throw a bomb, you are a freedom fighter, as long as you actually intend to set up a free government. [emphasis added]So to answer your question, "ever"? Yes, it can be. What's interesting about this discussion is an invocation of George Shultz (just prior to the excerpt I typed in). It was the case that Shultz was the the first American Secretary of State to have to deal with terrorism in a concerted way, and as such he had a role in shaping the US viewpoint and policy toward terrorism. Still, he often found himself defending the other side of the equation, that is to say, the legitimacy of the governments (especially democracies) who were fighting terrorist movements. In other words, something like "If you can vote, you can throw a bomb at a terrorist." I think this has definite echoes in following years' policies; again, a very statist way of framing the question.
The echoes include the fact that in Shultz's era he was often in sticky situations with regard to US allies who were widely regarded as illegitimate. There was, however, a wave of democratization, with countries like South Korea and Chile throwing off years-long dictatorships and quickly defining themselves as open societies and fully-fledged multi-party democracies. (Arguably, US "legitimacy" rhetoric and attitudes may have played a role, but let's allow these people their agency.) During the Bush administration this took on a messianic cast and supposedly a duty we had to democratize (e.g. Iraq) whether it was ready or not. Time will tell whether the heavier-handed approach worked better than the soft-power/laissez-faire end of things with the Arab Spring (or, indeed, either). But the question does hang in the air and I don't thing you're wrong to perceive it.
posted by dhartung at 9:24 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
That's not to say that what you may have read in one source is as you describe, but I would say it's not a widespread definition/distinction.
posted by Fukiyama at 7:53 AM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]