1 Introduction: Historically, and even today, terrorists get organized to shake a political party or a government or a social institution and achieve power or influence within a society. As a stepping stone to this goal, they use heinous and outdated strategies and tactics. One of these immoral tactics is to kill a small number of people, but terrify millions of people and political structures. The number of people who die from terrorism is small compared to the number of people who die from car accident and diseases. So the question is why do people fear terrorism and why are governments losing power because of sporadic terrorist attacks? To respond to this question, we have to first understand the meaning of terrorism. Y.N. Harari gives its literal meaning saying it is a military strategy that is believed to change a political situation through fear rather than material damage. This strategy is adopted by weak terrorist that could not cause huge material damage on their targets.
- Current Situation: unlike conventional warfare, causing fear is the purpose of terrorism. There is a huge disproportion between the strength of terrorists and the fear they arouse. It is not simple to change the political situations through terrorism. “The political balance of power” is hardly altered by terrorism in Europe, America and Asia. The number of people killed in terrorist attacks is small as compared to the number killed in conventional warfare. So, the question is how do terrorists hope to achieve their goal? Harari pointed out that after every act of terrorism the government continues to have the same military strength as before. The government’s means of transport and communication remains intact. Economic enterprises and power houses remain largely unharmed. However, terrorists believe that though they could not damage the power of the government, they cause fear and confusion, which force the government to overact and misuse its full power.
Terrorists believe that when the outraged government uses its full power against them, it will raise violent military and political storm than terrorists could create. In the process mistakes are committed by the government. This shakes public opinion and those who were indifferent join the terrorists. Though terrorists look weak, they could still create fear and anger in the public as a result of which it could go wild against the government. The government should, therefore, move carefully in dealing with terrorists. For Harari, terrorism leaves several choices in the hands of the government. Terrorists try to avoid this situation. So they seek to cause significant damage and reduce its ability to destroy them. But, provoking the government to act without eliminating any of its strategic weapons is dangerous for terrorists. However, since terrorists are weak, they have no choice but provoke the government to overreact. By killing a few people, they cause millions to fear for their lives. To calm the people, the government reacts with a show of force.
The overreaction of the government to terrorism causes more fear in the people than the terrorist could. Those who fight terrorism should think less like army generals and more like the terrorists, says Harari. If one wants to fight terrorism effectively, one must realize that terrorism cannot defeat him/her. But if one overacts in a misguided way to the provocations of terrorists, he/she is bound to lose the war. Thus, he/she is the only responsible person for losing the war against terrorism. Without having an army, terrorists conduct the difficult task of changing the political balance of power through violence. However, to achieve their goal terrorists challenge the government to prove to the citizens that it can protect them from political violence. In this difficult process terrorists hope to gain from unforeseen windfalls. It is believed that when the government faces such a challenge it could crush terrorists. As a result, several terrorist organizations had been destroyed in the past several decades by various governments. Also terrorists know that they are weak and lose to the brute force of governments. Yet, they believe that they have nothing to lose or gain materially. Still they gain whenever the government overacts and destroys the lives and properties of innocent citizens. Terrorists are of the opinion that they could not lose anything but win everything.
Whenever the government loses its temper and acts forcefully and publicly, it plays into the hands of terrorists. According to Harari, the reason the government overacts is that its legitimacy is based on the promise to keep its citizens free from political violence. A regime could ignore those terrorist acts provided that its legitimacy is not based on preventing citizens from violence. However, a government may lose its power because of a minor problem that undermines its legitimacy. These days a government may ignore other social problems compared to terrorism, because social problems seem not to affect its power base. Anybody who is not strong enough to cause violence is not worthy of the attention of the government. Centralized and strong governments have been able to eradicate political violence within their boundaries. Western countries have been able to transfer power peacefully to democratically elected parties without violence.
Their citizens have realized long ago that they could transfer power easily and peacefully through democratic elections. As a result political violence that killed people is seen as a threat to political legitimacy, and therefore, a threat against the political rights of the western people to elect their leaders. The less the political violence there is the greater the public shock for any minor act of terrorism. Killing a few people in Europe, for example, attracts more attention than killing thousands in Asia or Africa. Political violence is less frequent in Europe than in Africa or Asia. In other words, “the success of preventing violence makes one more vulnerable to terrorism.” Normally, the government stresses that it will not tolerate political violence within the country. Similarly, the citizens believe that they are protected against violence by the government.
In such a situation a minor terrorist act makes people fear as if the state is in total anarchy and collapse. To ease these fears the government has to respond to the minor act of terrorists. The most efficient response is a good intelligence and secret action against the financial networks that supply terrorists. But, if the government overacts, it is likely to fulfill the dreams of terrorists. Harari suggests that the government should conduct the struggle against terrorism on three fronts: first, it should focus on secret actions against terrorist networks. Second, the media should avoid publicity of terrorist attacks. Third, liberate the imagination of citizens about terrorist threats that feed their inner terror. These measures prevent the government from overacting and avoid fear and terror in the people.
- Lessons and Implications: 3.1 Terrorism indiscriminately destroys the lives of people, including innocent ones, who have no role in political activities. Even if they are politically active they do not deserve to be killed for that; after all, it is said that “man is a political animal.” Political violence could be prevented through civilized and free discussions of points of differences. Of course, where there is political suffocation, people find new ways and means of expressing their dissatisfactions, complaints, and grievances. People demand for redressing of their complaints through both formal and informal ways. Sources of complaints could be plenty to mention them all; but, a few can be suggested here. People may be forced out of their livelihoods through misappropriation of their property by the powers to be; they may be unemployed, remaining dependent on their family until they are aged. Unequal treatment of citizens, who are deprived of their basic rights, may be forced to resort to violent political actions. Let us not forget that such people are fertile grounds for terrorism.
Terrorism could be avoided if all citizens are convinced that they are equally treated by the government. The implication for Ethiopia is that both the so called terrorists and the government should sit together in a roundtable and discuss issues of differences. When differences are settled, then the contenders should give way to the Ethiopian people to decide on who is right through democratic elections. Let us be patient until the democratic process takes its own course.
3.2 Terrorism that uses political violence with the objective of accessing power is doomed to fail. It does not succeed in replacing a government elected by the people. Terrorists are not as strong as a democratically elected government except provoking it to react violently. This reaction of the government may lead to the killing of innocent citizens; the government loses the confidence and trust of citizens through over-action and this is the evil goal of terrorists. The implication to Ethiopia is that the government should not tolerate terrorism that wipes out the lives of innocent citizens. The government, therefore, has to operate as an institution responsible only to the Ethiopian people. Delay in protecting the constitutional rights of citizens, including the right to live, is bound to reflect in absolute weakness of the government. A weak government is as good as a terrorist.
3.3 Role of intermediaries, particularly the elderlies, is of prime importance to restore peace in the country. Of course, people who had been deprived of basic freedoms would emotionally explode when exposed to the light of freedom. Emotions lead to clashes among people that result in deaths. Ethiopians have killed each other in petty disputes that grew out of proportion. It seems that the taste of freedom has no limits unless it is tied by law and order. The irony is that duties and responsibilities of people seem to be out of balance in the early stage of freedom. This is true in a country that had been agonizing under authoritarian rule for decades.
The implication here is that Ethiopians should stop and avoid authoritarian rule at any cost. We have learnt enough that where dictatorship begins to overstretch, democracy dies in its infancy. As a result, an authoritarian ruler gives himself the right to kill its own people and go free. Unfortunately, in the last few decades, all authoritarians in this country have been treated by the people as “benevolent” leaders. The Ethiopian people have developed survival skills to save their skin in the face of a killer leader, whom they hate from the bottom of their heart.
They smile in his presence, but damn him in his absence. The Ethiopian government should realize that disaffected people are fertile ground for terrorism wherever possible. 4. Conclusion: In developing countries weak governments and terrorists engage in a war of no winners. In such a war the losers are only those innocent people; they lose their lives and properties for a cause they are not a part of. War begins when government wants to retain its power forever, while terrorists want to snatch power from it. In this situation, the role of elders in creating peace between weak governments and terrorists/opposition forces is of great importance. Contenders should not play hide and seek game behind the efforts of these elders. They have to realize that elders have strong social and political influence. The issue is whether political contenders give due credit to the role of elders. In developing countries where some politicians originate in poor families, they don’t have respect for elders.
They very well know that political power leads to wealth. So, they see elders as obstacles to their objective of accessing wealth through political power. Consequently, the war between weak governments and opposition forces/terrorists continues, causing more social, economic and political crisies. So, the question revolves around the true “taste of power?” Do political contenders fight for their personal interests or for the interests of the people? Whatever the case may be let them sale their political objectives in a public campaign and allow the people to make their own decisions through free and fair democratic election. The Ethiopian people have at last found in their midst their healer in the person of PM Dr. Abiy Ahmed. He is now leading them in the “long march to freedom.” At the end of the march, they would be able to democratically conduct their lives in peace, happiness and unity.
Herald January 27/2019
BY GETACHEW MINAS
