11.2: State-sponsored political violence

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Differentiate between internal and external state-sponsored political violence
• Understand different repressives policies (domestic terrorism)
• Evaluate different models of state-sponsored terrorism

Introduction

A major characteristic of a state is their ‘monopoly on the use of violence’. By this we mean that only the state and its institutions, such as the police or the military, have the authority to use violence, when necessary. The last part has been italicized for a reason. If the government of a country enjoys this monopoly, then the leaders, elected or not, are also responsible for when violence is used. Rules and regulations must exist for states when violence is employed by authorities. For example, all police authorities worldwide are expected to undergo formal training, background checks. In addition, most law enforcement officers are expected to be actively licensed, with periodic reviews of their performance. Unfortunately, those with the ability to wield such power, often through small arms and/or other weaponry, have too often abused this authority. We see many instances of protestors on global TV stations being beaten in the streets, or images of villages being looted or burned. When this occurs, it often leads the people of that country to believe that their government has transgressed their responsibility. At this stage, we can say that this state has engaged in state-sponsored political violence.

State-sponsored political violence can be characterized as “official government support for policies of violence, repression, and intimidation” (Martin, 2020, pg. 66). Officially, a government can sanction violence against people or organizations that are deemed to be a threat to the state. Who exactly gets to decide who is a threat, and in turn define them as an enemy is left to debate. Many times, state-sponsored political violence is often referred to as government terrorism, or state-sponsored terrorism. The word terrorism itself is often used to describe many different violent actions. Political leaders often use the word to describe actions taken by their political opposition. Similarly, people also apply the word terrorism to unpopular decisions made by leaders that have had harmful repercussions.

However, in political science terrorism has a specific meaning. Terrorism is defined as a violent act that generally targets noncombatants for political purposes. Some go even further and define terrorism as violence carried out by nonstate actors that targets noncombatants for political reasons. We tend to disagree and believe that such actions carried out by governments can rightfully also be labeled as terrorism. This is because terrorism is better understood as a tactic. The goal in terrorism is to use violence to disruption and fear among the general population as away to put pressure on government leaders. Terrorists hope that this pressure will lead to changes in government policy that they fond favorable. Let’s look at how different governments approach the use of political violence.

In democratic regimes, these decisions are often left up to the executive branches of a government. For example, in parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister’s cabinet will often make that call, often in consultation with the country’s intelligence agencies. In presidential systems, this decision often falls to the President, who usually consults with a national defense council. These councils often include the country’s defense minister, national security advisor and other relevant officials, such as the foreign minister. Either way, the decisions to determine who is a threat are eventually scrutinized by opposing politicians, or directly by the public. A good example is when opposition parties call for a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems for example. Through voting mechanisms, the public can concur with their elected leaders and re-elect them, or dissent and choose to vote for opposing candidates and/or parties.

In authoritarian regimes, a similar process plays out, but with some important differences. The decision on who is an enemy is still made at the executive level. However, whether it is a Prime Minister or a President, or a Premier making that call is irrelevant. In authoritarian systems there is also little to no recourse for those who may disagree. Often, the opposition party, if one exists, is ignored, and the public often lacks the formal voting mechanisms to remove a leader they disagree with. This can explain why the propensity for political violence may be greater in authoritarian regimes. As there are less checks on those who have a monopoly on the use of power, abuse of that authority is more likely.

Internal State-Sponsored Political Violence (Government Terrorism)

When a government finally determines who is a threat and designates someone, some group, or some organization as an enemy, the next step is figuring out where this threat/enemy is located. If it is determined to be within the borders of the country, then the threat is considered to be an internal threat. If it is determined to be outside the borders of the country, then the threat is considered an external threat. This distinction clearly matters as the state will have more autonomy to use violence against internal threats vis-a-vis external threats. The concept of sovereignty applies. Remember from Chapter One, sovereignty is fundamental governmental power, where the government has the power to coerce those to do things they may not want to do. Also remember from Chapter Three, sovereignty also involves the ability to manage the country’s affairs independently from outside powers and internal resistance. If a country enjoys widespread sovereignty, then the government will have more room from which to address internal threats. States have little to no sovereignty beyond their borders, though can project power in the defense of their interests.

When violence is officially sanctioned against a perceived internal threat or enemy, it can come in many forms. In democratic countries, this often involves use of force to arrest or detain those who act against the state. It may also involve the use of lethal means, particularly if the democratically elected government believes the threat could be an existential threat, or a threat to the existence of the state itself. An example could include a group that espouses an apocalyptic ideology, and may lack any political goals, other than seeing the destruction of their home government. Still, in a democratic society, the public will tend not to tolerate large scale measures. It is one thing to punish an extremist group, it’s another thing for wider security measures that could affect society writ large.

Still, the use of violence in a democratic society can occur without formal sponsorship by its government. Political violence can be used by vigilante groups, paramilitaries, and other armed groups. In many countries, these groups may not have the explicit support of the state, but implicit support instead. Often, they are administratively separate from official government structures. Such groups will wage unofficial campaigns of violence and suppression against perceived internal enemies. They may or may not work with a state’s security apparatus when targeting others. In addition, as these organizations are not part of a government’s official institutions, governments may claim that they exert no control or influence over the group’s actions.

In authoritarian countries, repression through violence may be official state policy. This is often referred to as overt repression as policy. Countries such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, or Nazi Germany, or in more recent times, Cambodia when ruled by the Khmer Rouge and Afghanistan in the 1990s before the U.S. invasion toppled them, all had adopted explicit repressive policies of violence towards people and segments of their population. Hundreds of thousands of people were exiled to work camps in Siberia during Stalin’s reign. Millions of people were killed in Nazi death camps, simply for being born in the wrogn group. The Khmer Rouge is responsible for one of the worst mass killings of the late 20th century. Up to two million Cambodians were massacred in their attempt to transform the country into an agrarian utopian society. Finally, Taliban rule of Afghanistan in the 1990s was cruel and vicious, often targeting minority groups, such as the Hazaras.

In addition to overt repression, where violence is the official state policy, there is also covert repression as policy. Often actions undertaken by secret police services, or domestic intelligence agencies are considered covert. Use of violence against individuals or groups is often done secretively with society unaware that these violent actions are taking place. There are plenty of examples of authoritarian regimes using their domestic law enforcement services to quell opposition or stifle any dissent. Intelligence agencies such as in Syria or Iraq, referred to as the Mukhabarat in Arabic, are often integrated parts of a country’s military structure. By surveilling the population, they can alert the military or law enforcement of any potential threats to the authoritarian regime’s rule. Covert repression can also include nonviolent means as well. The former country of East Germany had the Stasi, or the State Security Service is a good example. The Stasi became infamous for their network of informants they developed in East German society. They used this network to terrify the population and use that fear to target those who might oppose the regime.

Keep in mind that such violence is much less tolerated today than it was in the past. Before the end of the Cold War, the concept of sovereignty was paramount when it came to the internal affairs of a state. However, since the 1990s, there has been a significant shift in the view of sovereignty. Following numerous humanitarian crises, scholars, policymakers and IGO officials have advocated for a new approach: responsibility to protect (R2P). If a state refuses to protect its own citizens, then other states are expected to intervene in the state where abuses are occuring. R2P goes as far as to suggest using military force to protect another country’s citizens from persecution, especially if authorized by the UN Security Council.

External State-Sponsored Political Violence (State-Sponsored Terrorism)

When a country decides that the threat is external, the state can also take action. This action can be in the form of state-sponsored terrorism, which is defined as government support for terrorist actions in other states. However, these actions are going to be much more constrained than internal actions. Martin (2007) differentiates between two models of state-sponsored terrorism. The first is the patronage model of state-sponsored terrorism, which is when a state actively participates and encourages terrorist actions in other countries. The second is the assistance model of state-sponsored terrorism, which is when a state tacitly supports and encourages terrorist actions in other countries.

A good example of the patronage model of state-sponsored terrorism is Iranian support for Hezbollah in the Lebanon. Hezbollah is both a militant organization and a political party in Lebanon. Hezbollah directly translates as ‘party of God’ and politically represents Shi’a Muslim interests in Lebanon’s parliament. Founded during the devastating Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), the organization is active. They engage in combating other militias in Lebanon, have directly confronted Israel, both through fighting Israelis in southern Lebanon before Israeli forces pulled out in 2000 and with their rocket attacks on the country, and in supporting the Bashir al-Asad regime during the Syrian civil war. Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization by the US and other Western countries and Iran has been accused of supporting Hezbollah with weaponry, training and funding (Robinson, 2021).

For the assistance model of state-sponsored terrorism, a great example includes Pakistan’s tacit support for Lashkar-e-Taiba. Lashkar-e-Taiba roughly translates as ‘army of the righteous/pure’. They are a Pakistani-based terrorist organzation that is most famous for a 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, where operatives targeted the country’s financial district, a famous hotel landmark, and a Jewish cultural center. Pakistan has since banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, and prosecuted former members, however, the government tacitly supported the organization in the 1990s and still operates within Pakistan through a number of offshoot groups (Macander, 2021).