Correlation Between Political Science and Terrorism - Essay Sample

Introduction

Terrorism can have far-reaching effects on a country as depicted by the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in New York that claimed many lives and property. Whenever there is a significant terrorist event, there are always public debates over whether it should be classified as a political as an act of terror or not. Various institutions and political systems have different descriptions of terrorism, and this affects the intervention processes. There is a strong correlation between terrorism and political science since politicians, governments and other institutions take a subjective or objective approach depending on the act of terror.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Definition of Terrorism

It appears that terrorism is a complex concept because there is no simple and straightforward definition available. The definition is likely to affect the response and communication about this issue, which has consequences on society. However, a suitable and universal definition of terrorism remains elusive because different organizations, government agencies, and other bodies have different definitions that suit their agendas and biases (Bruce 26).

The UN has struggled to provide a universally acceptable definition of terrorism due to the complexity of the issue. However, it released an interim draft in 2001 that downplayed the political aspect. It classified acts of violence as terrorism if they were likely to result, or resulted, in major economic losses when the perpetrators intended to compel an international organization or a government, intimidate a population to abstain from or commit, certain acts (Bruce 26). A senior UN counterterrorism official, in 2010, confirmed that there was still no universal definition as they shifted the consensus to academic definitions.

Most academic definitions of terrorism emphasize a combination of politics, violence, psychology, and sociology in explaining this phenomenon (Bruce 27). One simple and broad definition states that terrorism is the illegitimate use of force in achieving certain political objectives through the targeting of innocent people. Another source defines terrorism as a set of combat methods that involve the premeditated use of violence against non-combatants with the aim of achieving the psychological effect of fear on the target and the wider audience (Bruce 27). There are numerous other definitions from legal and academic viewpoints, which show the difficulties in agreeing on the issue.

Political Science

The study of public policies, governments, and political systems, behaviors, and processes are collectively referred to as political science ("What Is Political Science"). The subfields of political science include political philosophy, theory, ideology, economy, policy studies, and international relations among others. Political scientists utilize scientific, methodological, and humanistic tools and perspectives in examining the dynamics of all regions and countries around the world ("What Is Political Science").

Politics and Terrorism

Ordinary American citizens classify terrorism based on the present objective factors, as well as subjectively based on the perpetrator. On one hand, the severity of the attack plays a significant role in contemporary legal definitions. Respondents, on the other hand, are also heavily influenced by the descriptions of the motivations and identity of the perpetrator. The media has considerable power in shaping the conversation, and hence the ability to influence the thinking of the masses (Huff and Kertzer 56).

The government is keen on what events it classifies as acts of terror since there are dire implications. This classification carries a direct policy consequence since terrorism is a federal charge, which is prosecuted differently from ordinary crimes (Huff and Kertzer 56). Some of the dire consequences of being labeled a terrorist include harsh financial sanctions, international terrorists are denied entry into the US, and Americans are also prohibited from interacting with such characters (Huff and Kertzer 56).

Politicians are concerned about who is labeled a terrorist because it can be used as a way of persuading the electorate to side with the government on the strategies aimed at dealing with the perpetrators. It gives lawmakers an opportunity to install certain measures and policies that would otherwise be considered too draconian and thus dismissed. For example, George Bush used the War on Terror as an excuse of invading the Middle East and engaging in military combat (Bruce 28). The terrorist tag is also crucial since governments and politicians can use it to repress, demonize, or victimize political bodies, religious organizations, civilians, or their opponents, which mostly occurs in authoritarian states. On March 2012, the Syrian President Bashar al Assad described the country's citizens as terrorists, leading to the massacre of civilians by government agents. In America, the terrorist label has been used to justify the defying of legal means in the apprehension and detainment of people at Guantanamo Bay (Bruce 28).

The need to have certain policies in place has led to a condoning, and even support, of terrorist activities by certain governments. Terrorism is an international phenomenon because the recruitment, control, command, training, operations, and target audiences can be found in many countries around the world (Bruce 26. Therefore, counterterrorism initiatives are only likely to be successful when all nations agree on the characteristics and activities that define a terrorist group. However, what some governments view as an act of terror might be a benefit to the other, since each has their definition. After the Munich Olympic massacre of 1972, the UN was unable to get universal agreement as some Asian, Middle Eastern, and African nations were reluctant to label the perpetrators as terrorists since they sympathized with their overall agenda (Bruce 26). The American government has also sided with groups that have committed acts of terror to advance a political agenda. The Reagan administration offered funding to the Nicaraguan contras in 1979 to aid in their fight against the ruling regime, whose goals were viewed as a vehicle for furthering the Soviet political strategy in the area (Bruce 26). It is evident, therefore, that politics and terrorism are intertwined, and it is one of the reasons why it is difficult to come up with a clear definition of terrorism.

Motivation for Terrorists

Studies of terrorism and political violence have traditionally concentrated on the economic and social causes behind their occurrence. Relative deprivation, primarily economically, has often been identified as the reason behind the increase in terror attacks (Qvortrup 506). However, there is evidence to suggests that there are other reasons that motivate terrorists in different countries around the world.

A widely-held tradition in political theory, dating back of the authors of the Federalist Papers, suggests that constitutional and political institutions can be used to alter the behavior of political actors in a given country (Qvortrup 507). According to the much-cited model by political scientist David Easton, political systems can be viewed as input-output models. The input is when the groups in a given environment articulate their demands, and aggregators channel them into the political system. On entering the political system, the demands are transformed into decisions, actions, and policies, which are considered as the output (Qvortrup 507). The role of articulators was traditionally performed by trade unions and civic groups who outline the demands of the public in a precise manner. The role of aggregators, on the other hand, was performed by political parties who made policies out of the articulated information (Qvortrup 508).

The process of aggregation by political parties is vital because it ensures that the demands and concerns from people in the surrounding environment are translated into decisions and policies. Terrorism can be viewed as a breakdown of the input side of Easton's political model (Qvortrup 508). The use of political violence, specifically domestic terrorism, has always emerged in situations where the one-on-one relationship between articulators and aggregators was broken down (Qvortrup 508). When the views of the people in the surrounding environment are not considered by the aggregators, it often results in some form of violence. When people, especially the minority, feel like their views or opinions are being ignored by the policymakers, they might result in other approaches to make themselves heard. Radicalization is often accompanied by a perception of alienation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement (Qvortrup 508).

Ideally, all groups are adequately represented, in any political setting, with aggregators to air their views. However, there are situations where certain minority groups do not have an outlet to air their grievances or issues since there is nobody to offer sufficient representation. When individuals are adequately represented in the political decision-making process, it increases the likelihood of their voices being heard, which leads to the chance of influencing policy output and decisions. The ability to influence decisions, in turn, increases the people's trust in the political system, which lowers the chances of domestic terrorism (Qvortrup 508). Conversely, a lack of adequate representation means that the grievances of the minority are ignored, and this encourages them to result to 'politics by other means' (Qvortrup 508).

A study of different political systems revealed that terrorism has high chances of occurring in nations that were governed on a majoritarian basis (Qvortrup 508). Majoritarian electoral systems have a first-past-the-post mentality where the winner takes all, and the loser is left with nothing. These regimes are more likely to experience political violence compared to countries that are governed by proportional representation. The losers of elections in such countries are often the minority groups, and it means that that suffer from a dire lack of representation during the making of critical policies that affect human lives. Such groups may result in overt means of political violence to grab the attention of the policy makers.

Terrorists, especially international ones, are motivated by a sense of retribution against some perceived infringement by a particular country. Therefore, international terror is also significantly fuelled by political factors. For example, the Al Qaeda extremists justify their attacks on western democracies, primarily America, as a retribution for political, cultural, and economic interference in their countries.

Political Counterterrorism

The approaches to combating terrorism are not limited to the activities of law enforcement authorities. Instead of dealing with the consequences, which is often the role of law enforcement, it is best to understand the causal factors that motivate terrorist activities. Treating a problem by addressing its root cause is likely to offer a lasting solution, which is the best remedy for terrorism. Countries can undertake institutional reforms that will create democracies that are not prone to terrorism. Constitutional engineering can help to address some of the endemic problems in a society, but its implementation is hampered by the challenge of achieving consensus in some countries (Qvortrup 509). Constitutional engineering and institutional design could work in countries that have a democratic background, but it would be almost impossible in tyrannical or dictatorial regimes. Electoral reforms can help to bring inclusivity in a political system, which addresses the claims and issues of the losing side, leading to a reduced risk of terrorist incidences.

Gove...