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

Introduction

States have a ‘monopoly on the use of violence’. In other words, only the state and its institutions, such as the police or the military, have the authority to use violence, when necessary. 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, and 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.

Sometimes, on global TV stations, there are images of protesters beaten in the streets, or 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, the 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). Who exactly gets to decide who is a threat, and in turn define them as an enemy, is left to debate. Political leaders often use the word government terrorism, or state-sponsored terrorism, to describe actions taken by their political opposition. Similarly, people also apply the word to unpopular decisions made by leaders that have had harmful repercussions.

In political science, terrorism has a specific meaning. Terrorism is a violent act that generally targets noncombatants for political purposes. This violence may be carried out by nonstate actors. The goal of terrorism is to use violence to disrupt and place fear among the general population as a way to put pressure on government leaders. Terrorists hope that this pressure will lead to changes in government policy that they find favorable.

Different governments approach the use of political violence differently.

In democratic regimes, political violence 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. In presidential systems, this decision often falls to the President. Both leaders may consult intelligence agencies or the national defense council which may 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.

In authoritarian regimes, a similar process plays out, but with some important differences. The executive level decides who the enemy is. Whether it is a Prime Minister, President, or Premier making that call is irrelevant. 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. Thus, the propensity for political violence may be greater in authoritarian regimes. As there are fewer 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 to designate 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. 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. In addition, it 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, those who act against a state may be arrested or detained. 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 would be a group that espouses an apocalyptic ideology, that may lack any political goals, but still, desire the destruction of their home government. 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 to invoke wider security measures that could affect society at large.

Political violence can occur through vigilante groups, paramilitaries, and other armed groups. In many countries, these groups may not have the explicit support of the state. Rather, it is implicit. 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, governments may claim that they exert no control or influence over the group’s actions.

• In authoritarian countries, repression through violence may be an official state policy, also known as overt repression as policy. The Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany under Hitler, Cambodia when ruled by the Khmer Rouge, and Afghanistan in the 1990s, all adopted explicit repressive policies of violence towards people and segments of their population. For example, 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 into the wrong group. Finally, the Taliban targeted minority groups, such as the Hazaras.

In addition to overt repression, there is covert repression as policy, those actions undertaken by secret police services, or domestic intelligence agencies. Such use of violence against individuals or groups is often done secretively with society unaware that these violent actions are taking place. Some intelligence agencies, such as in Syria or Iraq and 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. For example in former East Germany, the Stasi, or the State Security Service, became infamous for its network of informants. They used this network to terrify the population and use that fear to target those who might oppose the regime.

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 occurring. 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. State-sponsored terrorism is 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.

• Patronage model of state-sponsored terrorism is when a state actively participates and encourages terrorist actions in other countries.
  • An example is Iran's support for Hezbollah, 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. In addition, they have directly confronted Israel. 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).
• Assistance model of state-sponsored terrorism is when a state tacitly supports and encourages terrorist actions in other countries.
  • An example would be Pakistan’s tacit support for Lashkar-e-Taiba. Lashkar-e-Taiba roughly translates as ‘army of the righteous/pure’. This Pakistani-based terrorist organization 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, and it still operates within Pakistan through a number of offshoot groups (Macander, 2021).