Blog 8

Blog Post 8: Categorizing Political Violence

In November 2009, the South American state of Uruguay tuned heads by electing Jose “Pepe” Mujica, a controversial ex-guerilla fighter as its president (Farrell 2009).  Mujica had fought as a member of the Tupamaros, an urban guerrilla organization that was at-large in Montevideo during the early 1970s (Farrell 2009).  Mujica’s election revived scrutiny of the Tupamaro movement and its unique tactics. The Tupamaros’ interesting actions prompt questions about how to categorize instances of political violence.  Because the Tupamaro movement’s focus on small-scale political violence, I argue that it is usually classified as terrorism (Holmes 2001, 116). I use the case study of the Uruguayan Tupamaros to discuss the validity of existing definitions of terrorism.

David Samuels defines terrorism as “threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, directed particularly against civilian targets (Samuels 2011, 276). Samuels’ definition of terrorism effectively categorizes the Tupamaro movement in several regards.  Firstly, the Tupamaro group was comprised of non-state actors—the organization was founded by Montevideo law student Raul Sendic and manned by other students and middle-class workers disillusioned with the restrictive economic policies of the Uruguayan government (Cova 1997). Samuel’s definition is also accurate in that the Tupamaros used violence primarily for political purposes.  Specifically, the Tupamaros attempted to discredit and humiliate the Uruguayan government through armed robberies, kidnappings, and assassinations (Uppsala Conflict Data Program 2012).  The Tupamaros believed that violent tactics would convince the public of the government’s weakness and ultimately citizens to withdraw their support from the current regime (Cova 1997). Hence, the Tupamaros used violence primarily to politically cripple the Uruguayan government.  In this sense, Samuels’ definition of terrorism accurately categorizes the Tupamaro movement as a terrorist group.  

Although the first portion of David Samuels’ explanation of terrorism accurately describes the political violence of the Tupamaro movement, the Tupamaros’ tactics seem to challenge the latter-portion of Samuels’ definition.  Specifically, the Tupamaros’ focus on violently targeting non-civilians defies Samuels’ definition of terrorism. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a civilian as “one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force” (Merriam-Webster 2012). Many of the Tupamaro kidnappings and attacks were primarily directed at Uruguayan police and military forces and not civilians (Holmes 2001, 117). Because the Tupamaros’ strategy relied on turning public favor in their behalf, they were reluctant to commit overt acts of violence against the public.  The attacks on the police and military were intended to strike fear into the hearts of the security forces and demonstrate the incompetency of the current Uruguayan administration (Cova 1997). Also, because the Tupamaro recruits were largely made up of idealists and dissidents, the group did not need to use coercion to build its membership.  Considering the fact that the Tupamaros did not extensively target civilians in their acts of political violence, I argue that Samuels’ definition of terrorism does not completely encapsulate the Tupamaro movement.  

While the portion of Samuels’ definition which describes terrorism as “threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors” accurately describes the Uruguayan Tupamaros, the qualifying phrase “particularly against civilian targets” does not (Samuels 2011, 276).  In order to accurately categorize the Tupamaros’ brand of political violence, a modified definition of terrorism is needed.  I suggest that terrorism be defined as “threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, particularly against strategically selected targets.”  This definition encompasses terrorist groups like the Tupamaros who direct attacks against non-civilian targets in order to advance a strategic political objective.  It could be argued that the Uruguayan violence in the early should be classified as civil war because the Tupamaros attacked non-civilians who represented the Uruguayan state. Because the Tupamaros committed a relatively small number of highly-publicized assassinations, however, the violence associated with the Tupamaro movement does not meet the threshold of 1,000 deaths required by David Samuels’ definition of civil war (Samuels 2011, 259).  Therefore, the Tupamaros’ political violence should still be categorized as terrorism, though the definition of terrorism should be modified to account for the possibility of attacks on non-civilian targets, as previously discussed. 

REFERENCES

Cova, Antonio R. 1997. Latin American studies: The Tupamaros of Uruguay. http://www.latin americanstudies.org/uruguay/tupamaros-uruguay.htm (accessed November 8, 2012).

Farrell, Jeff. 2009. In Uruguay, former guerrilla wins by moving away from Chavez. Christian Science Monitor. November 30. In LexisNexis.

Holmes, Jennifer. 2001. Terrorism and democratic stability. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2012. “Civilian.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian (accessed November 8, 2012).

Samuels, David J. 2012. Comparative politics. Minneapolis: Pearson.

Uppsala Conflict Data Program. 2012. UCDP conflict encyclopedia: Uruguay. http://www.ucdp.uu.se /gpdatabase /gpcountry.php?id=165&regionSelect=5-Southern_Americas# (accessed November 9, 2012).