Political
assassinations have been part of social reality since the emergence of communal
social frameworks, as the leaders of tribes, villages, and other types of
communities constantly needed to defend their privileged status. In the ancient
world assassination featured prominently in the rise and fall of some of the
greatest empires.
While
many people are familiar with the military victories of Alexander the Great,
few today recall that his ascendance to power was facilitated by the
assassination of his father (an innovative and talented politician in his own
right), who was struck down by a bodyguard as he was entering a theater to
attend his daughter’s marriage celebrations. In a somewhat more famous
incident, Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE by Roman senators who
increasingly feared that Caesar would revoke their privileges.
In
modern times, political assassinations continue to play an important role in
political and social processes and, in some cases, have a dramatic effect. For
example, many argue that the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak
Rabin in 1995 was a major reason for the collapse of the peace process between
Israel and the Palestinians. It is also difficult to deny the impact of the
assassinations of figures such as Martin Luther King or Benazir Bhutto on the
success of their political movements/parties following their deaths.
Thus,
it is not surprising that Appleton argues, “The impact of assassinations on
America and the World is incalculable,” and that Americans cite the
assassination of John F. Kennedy as the crime that has had the greatest impact
on American society in the last 100 years. Nonetheless, despite the apparently
significant influence of political assassinations on political and social
realities, this particular manifestation of political action is understudied
and, as a result, poorly understood.
This
article is a summary of a broader study that will be published later by the
Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) and aims to improve our understanding of the
causes and implications of political assassinations. It makes use of an
original and comprehensive worldwide data set of political assassinations
between 1945 and 2013. The findings illustrate the trends that characterize the
phenomenon and challenge some of the existing conventions about political
assassinations and their impact.
Data and
Rationale
In order to
investigate the causes and implications of political assassinations, the CTC
constructed a data set that includes political assassinations worldwide from
1946 to early 2013. After defining political assassinations as “an action that
directly or indirectly leads to the death of an intentionally targeted
individual who is active in the political sphere, in order to promote or
prevent specific policies, values, practices or norms pertaining to the
collective,” the CTC consulted a variety of resources, including relevant
academic books and articles, media sources (especially LexisNexis and The New
York Times archive), and online resources, to identify 758 attacks by 920
perpetrators that resulted in the death of 954 individuals. (Some attacks led
to the death of multiple political leaders; however, the death of “bystanders”
is not included in this number.)
This
study is guided by the rationale that the logic of political assassinations is
different from that of other manifestations of political violence. Hence, it is
important to understand the unique factors that may encourage or discourage
violent groups or individuals from engaging in political assassinations.
Moreover, it seems reasonable to assume that these factors vary among different
types of assassinations because in most cases the characteristics of the
targeted individual shape the nature and objectives of the assassination.
Indeed, this study establishes that different processes trigger different types
of assassinations and that different types of assassinations generate distinct
effects on the political and social arenas.
General
Observations
Although the
first two decades after World War II were characterized by a limited number of
political assassinations, the number of such attacks has risen dramatically
since the early 1970s. This is reflective of the emergence of a new wave of
terrorist groups, radical and universal ideologies operating on a global scale,
and a growing willingness by oppressive regimes to use assassinations as a tool
in their treatment of political opposition. Indeed, while most assassinations
of government officials were perpetrated by sub-state violent groups, most
assassinations of opposition leaders were initiated by ruling political elites
or their proxies. This important observation supports the notion that a growing
number of terrorist groups see assassinations as a legitimate and effective
tool, and that one of the major obstacles for democratization is the vulnerability
of political opposition.
Additionally,
our data indicates that assassinations are not limited to specific regions or
specific time frames. In fact, the opposite is true. Both regions that are
considered politically stable and economically prosperous, such as Western
Europe, as well as regions that are considered politically unstable, more prone
to political violence, and economically weak, such as sub-Saharan Africa, have
experienced similar levels of political assassinations.
In
some regions, however, political assassinations have become dominant only in
the last couple of decades. In South Asia, for example, 76 percent of the
assassinations have been perpetrated since the mid-1980s, possibly a
consequence of the growing instability in the region during and after the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And more than 85 percent of assassinations in
Eastern Europe were perpetrated after 1995 with the start of the transition to
democracy in most Eastern European countries, a process that in many cases was
accompanied by growing ethnic tensions and political instability. In terms of
targets, the data indicates that most assassinations target heads of state (17
percent), opposition leaders (who are not part of the executive or legislative
branch) (18 percent), and members of parliament (21 percent). In rarer
instances the targets are ministers (14 percent), diplomats (10 percent), local
politicians such as governors or mayors (5 percent), and vice head of states (3
percent).
Causes
of Assassinations
The research
findings indicate that, in general, political assassinations are more probable
in countries that suffer from a combination of restrictions on political
competition and strong polarization and fragmentation.
More
specifically, states that lack consensual political ethos and homogeneous
populations (in terms of the national and ethnic landscape) and include
politically deprived groups will face a decline in the legitimacy of the
political leadership and the political system and an increase in the likelihood
of direct attacks against political leaders. One of the most glaring examples
of such a dynamic may be found in Sri Lanka, where the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam, a group that represents the deprived Tamil minority, organized a
bloody campaign of political assassinations against the political leadership of
the state and the Sinhalese majority from the early 1980s until approximately
2009. And since these issues tend to be present mainly in times of electoral
processes or of actual violent strife, one should not be surprised that our
findings indicate that election periods or periods characterized by a general
increase in domestic violence are moments when a country is more susceptible to
political assassinations.
Another
interesting finding is that the territorial fragmentation of a country is
correlated with an increase in the number of assassinations. When a government
loses control over some parts of a country to opposition groups, both sides are
more willing to use assassinations to enhance their influence and to
consolidate their status as the sole legitimate rulers of the polity.
When
looking specifically at the facilitators of assassinations of heads of state,
we can identify some unique trends. To begin with, the polities most
susceptible to assassinations against the head of state are authoritarian
polities that lack clear succession rules and in which the leader enjoys
significant political power. This is true even more so in polities that also
include oppressed minorities and high levels of political polarization.
Therefore, non-democratic political environments that feature leaders who are
able to garner significant power and in which the state lacks efficient
mechanisms for leadership change following an assassination, provide more
prospects for success in advancing political changes via political
assassination. This stands in contrast to democratic systems, in which it is
clear that the elimination of the head of state will have only a limited,
long-term impact on the socio-political order.
Although
heads of state represent what could be considered the crown jewel of political
assassinations, lower-ranking political figures also face this threat. In this
study, we specifically examined attacks against legislators and vice heads of
state. Attacks against the latter are fairly rare and are usually intended to
promote highly specific policy changes (related to areas under the
responsibility of the vice head of state) or to prevent the vice head of state
from inheriting the head of state position. Legislators, on the other hand, are
most often victims of civil wars or similar violent domestic clashes in
developing countries; in democracies they are almost never targeted.
To
illustrate, no less than 34 Iranian legislators were assassinated in 1981, when
the new revolutionary regime was consolidating its control over the country.
Hence, assassinations of legislators are almost always a result of
national-level conflicts rather than local ones, contrary to what some may
suspect. Lastly, legislators’ assassinations are rarely perpetrated to promote
specific policies or to gain access to the political process. In other words,
the assassination of legislators should be considered more as acts of protest
against an existing political order than political actions that are intended to
promote specific political goals.
One
of the unique features of this study, among others, is its focus on
assassinations of political figures who are not part of governing platforms.
Unlike other types of assassinations, the state is typically a major actor in
the assassination in these cases. Consequently, it should not surprise us that
opposition leaders are more likely to be targeted in authoritarian systems or
in weak democracies, as the political environment in these types of regimes
provides a space for the emergence of an opposition while also providing the
ruling elites tools and legitimacy for oppressive measures against a
“successful” opposition (e.g. Pakistan as well as many Latin American
countries). It is also clear that opposition leaders are more vulnerable during
violent domestic conflicts, when the number of opportunities, and maybe also
the legitimacy, to act against them are on the rise.
Impact
of Political Assassinations
The study
provides several important insights regarding the impact of political
assassinations. In general, political assassinations seem to intensify
prospects of a state’s fragmentation and undermine its democratic nature. The
latter is usually manifested in a decline in political participation and a
disproportionate increase in the strength of the executive branch.
When
we looked specifically at different types of assassinations, we were able to
find significant variations among them. For example, assassinations of heads of
state tend to generate a decline in the democratic nature of a polity and an
increase in domestic violence and instability as well as economic prosperity.
The latter may sound counterintuitive but could reflect the rise of a more open
economic system after the elimination of authoritarian ruler. The assassination
of opposition leaders has a limited impact on the nature of a political system,
but has the potential to lead to an increase in overall unrest and domestic
violence. And assassinations of legislators are often followed by public unrest
(illustrated by growing anti-government demonstrations) and by a decline in the
legitimacy of the government.
Policy
Implications
This study
illustrates that most polities experienced political assassinations at some
point in their history. Thus, our ability to improve our understanding of
political processes must also include a deeper understanding of the causes and
consequences of political assassinations. But how can the findings presented in
this study help us to understand the potential role of policymakers in the occurrence
or prevention of political assassinations?
To
begin with, it is evident that governments can promote political and social
conditions that may decrease the prospects of political assassinations. For
example, while governments in polarized societies sometimes have the tendency
to restrict political participation in order to prevent further escalation in
intrastate communal relations, our findings indicate that this action will
actually increase the probability of political assassinations.
Moreover,
in order for electoral processes to become a viable tool for promoting a
productive and peaceful political environment, it is clear that they are more
effective after ensuring the most intense political grievances have been
addressed. Otherwise, electoral competition has the potential to instigate
further violence, including the assassinations of political figures. The
shaping of stable and regulated succession mechanisms is also highly important,
especially in countries that are struggling to construct stable democratic
institutions. Interestingly, it seems that while theories of democratization
have for a long time prescribed the creation of institutions as a first step to
ensure wide representation, followed by stable routines and protocols, the
opposite order may be more effective for the promotion of stability and
eventually a liberal-democratic environment.
The
findings also indicate that more attention needs to be given to the safety of
the political leaders during instances of violent domestic clashes or
transitions to democracy. Opposition leaders are most vulnerable in the early
stages of democratization, so the effort to facilitate a democratic environment
must also include the creation of mechanisms to ensure the safety of opposition
leaders. This in turn will enhance the legitimacy of political participation,
reduce polarization, and enhance political stability.
Moreover,
although civilian victims naturally attract most of the public attention during
a civil war, this study highlights the need to evaluate how harm to political
figures may be prevented, as this has significant potential to lead to further
escalation of a conflict, especially when the assassinated figures are heads of
state or opposition leaders.
Lastly,
the findings also provide several practical insights for law enforcement. More
than half of the assassins (51.3 percent) had been involved in criminal
activities prior to the assassination. This may indicate that a group usually
prefers one of its veteran members to perform an assassination, probably
because of the high stakes involved in these kinds of operations and the
relatively high level of operational knowledge necessary to conduct them.
In
one extreme example, the leader of the Bangladeshi branch of Harkat-ul-Jihad
al-Islami (HuJI), Mufti Abdul Hannan, was revealed to have participated
actively in the attempted assassination of Sheikh Hasina, the leader of an
opposition party in Bangladesh and the former Bangladesh prime minister, in
August 2004. Also, because of the particular risks involved in these kinds of
operations, groups may prefer to expose members who are already known to law
enforcement agencies to conduct an assassination rather than exposing members
who are still unknown to law enforcement bodies. (However, this may be
problematic since the veteran members are often at higher risk of being under
surveillance).
Conclusion
The dearth of
research on political assassination represents a crucial oversight, especially
considering the frequency of the phenomenon and its implications. Our study
highlights the major theoretical and policy implications of assassinations and
identifies some promising directions for further research, with the hope that
this unique type of political violence will be better understood in the future.
By: Dr. Arie Perliger
Source: https://www.ctc.usma.edu/
Comments