Political
science continues to attempt to categorize events into certain terms; however,
much debate remains concerning such classifications. In this case, various instances of political
violence incite debate. For example,
definitions have been given for terrorism and revolution. The former is classified as “threatened or
actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, directed
particularly against civilian targets.”[1] The latter involves battle between the state
and insurgents, with the insurgents emerging victorious and implementing
widespread change[2]. These definitions provide a broad base;
however, how well do they work? To make
this decision, one must determine how political violence emerges.
To study this case, one may consider the violence occurring
in Great Britain the twentieth century[3]. During this time, the Provisional Irish
Republican Army attempted to overthrow British rule in Northern Ireland,
therefore expanding the Irish homeland. The
IRA formed as the secret military of the Sinn Fein political party, seeking to
unify Ireland. After several failed revolts
and attempts at home rule, Ireland declared independence in 1916. After World War I, Irish freedom fighters,
who would later become the IRA, recaptured Irish territory from British
hands. The Republic of Ireland would
later gain recognition; however, British measures would later divide Ireland
into the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.
Beginning in 1970, the PIRA gained increased support among Irish
nationalists. This upsurge in popularity
allowed volunteers to engage in guerrilla warfare against the British army and
Northern Irish cities; bombings and urban fighting were common. The guerrillas ceased violence on August 31,
1994, hoping for a truce. Peace talks
broke down, however, when the British pushed for unilateral disarmament. Citing British failure to agree, the IRA
continued its campaign in February 1996.
Other attempts at peace began later that year[4].
In the case of the Irish Republican Army, terrorism
correctly defines their method of violence.
They employed guerrilla warfare to drive off the state’s troops, using
irregular tactics. Their target, the
United Kingdom, also coincides with a traditional terrorist target: a hard
state. The Brits possessed a great
military and were economically strong, unable to falter to weaker military
attacks. Instead, the Irish Republican Army
would use bombings, assassinations, extortions, robberies and kidnappings to
confront the enemy. In this way, the
definition of terrorism is correct, using violence for political purposes by
non-state actors. However, the second
part, directed primarily against civilian targets, proves false. This group did attack civilian areas, but
would also terrorize military installations and barracks to disrupt military
power. Because of these discrepancies,
one may propose a new definition: using violence for political purposes by
non-state actors. By doing this, one does
not exclude attacks against military targets as terror.
This instance can apply to another term: revolution. The struggle for Irish independence began as
a revolution against the ruling state, Great Britain. A group of insurgents, Irish freedom fighters
and IRA, fought against the state, the UK, and won, instituting a republican
form of government. However, according
to the given definition, this revolt was not a revolution but, in fact, a
separatist movement. This form of
violence causes the breaking away of part of a state into a separate sovereign
nation. As a result, classification is
difficult. On one hand, the insurgents
won, implementing their new political agenda; however, correlation ends
here. Great Britain was not toppled by
this conflict, indicating the limitations of the term’s application. Wholesale political change over the entire
state is the key to a revolution. As a
result, the definition provided is correct.
Categorizing political violence is complicated as debates
continue over definitions. In the case
provided, the Irish Republican Army proved a constant source of violence for
Great Britain throughout the twentieth century.
Their tactics may be classified as terrorism, with a slight variation in
definition: terror can target militaries as well as civilians. Despite some similarities, a revolution would
not correctly define this incident. Revolution
does in fact require wholesale change with the insurgents victorious, not just
in a small portion. Instead, a
separatist movement would prove better. In
this case, current definitions hold strong, though with slight change. The debate will continue over the correct
application of such terms.
Works Cited
Samuels, David J. "Chapter 10: Political Violence." Comparative
Politics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2013. 257-84. Print.
Themner, Lotta, and Peter Wallensteen. "Armed Conflict,
1946-2011." UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset. Journal of Peace
Research, 12 July 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2012.
<http://pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_prio_armed_conflict_dataset/>.
Willett, Corey, Michael Griffin, Eric Manley, and Ronald Matten.
"Terrorism: Irish Republican Army." Eastern Michigan University, n.d.
Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Unsorted/Irish%20Republican%20Army.pdf>.
I was impressed that you redefined terrorism as including military targets. I would have simply described the Provisional IRA as employing terrorist tactics sometimes and guerrilla tactics at other times; it would not have occurred to me to adapt the definition to fit the entire conflict. Creatively done.
ReplyDeleteWell written, good arguments, solid conclusion
ReplyDelete