6.5: State-Sponsored Political Violence

Introduction

As Max Weber (1919) famously defines, a state is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." A state's institutions, such as the police and the military, have the authority to use violence, when necessary, according to the rules and regulations within a given state. Yet who creates those rules and regulations--namely, who deems which threats are necessary to combat with physical force--is crucially important.

In a democratic regime, threat determinations are often left to the executive branch of government. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister's cabinet may determine threats, often in consultation with the state's intelligence agencies; in a presidential system, the president may determine threats, often in consultation with a national defense council. In either democratic system, decisions related to threats ultimately face scrutiny by opposing politicians (who, in parliamentary systems, may be able to call for a vote of no confidence) and the public (who, in either system, can fail to reelect a leader with whom they disagree). There are built-in accountability mechanisms related to political violence within a democratic regime.

In a non-democratic regime, threat determinations again take place within the executive branch of government, but there are few or no accountability mechanisms. Those who disagree with the decision of an authoritarian leader have little to no recourse. The government will likely ignore or suppress an opposition political party expressing disagreement (if an opposition party exists), and the public is unlikely to remove leadership in sham elections (elections that are neither free nor fair). In comparison to a democratic regime, a non-democratic regime has fewer checks on those with the power to choose when violence is an appropriate response.

While these broad differences related to accountability between regimes types are important to keep in mind, we observe state-sponsored political violence in both democracies and non-democracies (though to different extents). State-sponsored political violence is "official government support for policies of violence, repression, and intimidation" (Martin, 2020). Below, we detail two types of state-sponsored political violence: internal, when threats exist within the borders of a state, and external, when threats exist outside the borders of the state.

Internal State-Sponsored Political Violence

Internal state-sponsored political violence occurs when a government uses violence against a perceived threat coming from its own citizens. Because the threat is internal, the state generally has the autonomy to use violence as it deems necessary given its sovereignty. As a reminder from Chapter 3, sovereignty provides the state with the ability to manage its affairs independently from outside powers and internal resistance. Internal state-sponsored political violence can take many forms.

First, the police may use force to arrest or detain those who act against the state. The police may also use lethal means, particularly if the government believes the threat to be existential (a threat to the existence of the state itself). For example, if protests erupt in support of a group espousing an apocalyptic ideology, an ideology lacking any political goals other than the destruction of the government, a state may choose to employ extreme measures to quell the protests.

Second, political violence may occur without formal sponsorship by the government, such as through vigilante groups, paramilitaries, or other armed groups that wage unofficial campaigns of violence and suppression against perceived internal threats. Even in democratic regimes, these groups may exist and--though they likely will not have the explicit support of the state--they may receive implicit support, such as by unofficially gaining information from the state's security apparatus.

Third, political violence may occur through a policy of overt repression, in which a state openly conducts political violence. In a non-democratic regime, violent tactics may even be official state policy. States such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, Germany under the Nazi Party, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge all adopted explicit repressive policies of violence toward certain segments of their populations. Stalin exiled hundreds of thousands of people to work camps in Siberia; the Nazis killed millions of people in death camps; and the Khmer Rouge massacred up to two million Cambodians in their attempt to transform the country into an agrarian utopian society.

Fourth, political violence may occur through a policy of covert repression, in which a state uses its secret police or domestic intelligence agencies to repress its citizens in a hidden manner. With covert repression, the violence aims to quell opposition and stifle dissent through secretive means, with the broader society unaware that the violence is occurring (or unaware of the scale of the violence). As one example, intelligence agencies in non-democratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, called the mukhabarat, are often integrated into a state's military structure. By surveilling the population, they can alert the military or law enforcement of any potential threats to the authoritarian regime's rule. Syria's Mukhabarat, for instance, played an instrumental role in the mass detainment, torture, and death of individuals deemed threats during the decades-long rule of the Assad family (1971-2024). Covert repression can also include non-violent means. The former communist country of East Germany (officially the German Democratic Republic) employed the Stasi, or the State Security Service, to create a network of informants to instill fear among East German citizens opposed to the regime.

External State-Sponsored Political Violence

External state-sponsored political violence occurs when a government uses violence against foreign citizens, usually in neighboring states. Because the threat is external, the state has less autonomy to use violence than when the threat is internal; the lack of a legitimate claim to sovereignty constrains states' actions.

One example of this type of violence is "state-sponsored terrorism." State-sponsored terrorism is government support for terrorist actions in other states. Terrorism is a violent act that generally targets non-combatants for political purposes. This tactic aims to spread fear among the general population, and the goal is that this widespread fear will pressure government leaders to make changes that are favorable to the terrorists.

Martin (2007) differentiates between two models of state-sponsored terrorism: the patronage model and the assistance model. The patronage model occurs when a state actively participates and encourages terrorist actions in other states. An example of this model is Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is both a political party and a militant organization. Founded during the devastating Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), the organization remains active. Politically, Hezbollah directly translates as "Party of God" and represents Shi’a Muslim interests in Lebanon's Parliament. Militarily, Hezbollah maintains significant military capacity and uses its weapons against what it perceives as threats, including against the State of Israel. A number of states designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and accuse Iran of supporting it with weaponry, training, and funding (Robinson, 2021).

The assistance model occurs when a state tacitly supports and encourages terrorist actions in other states. An example of this model is Pakistan's tacit support for Lashkar-e-Taiba. Lashkar-e-Taiba roughly translates as "army of the righteous." It is a Pakistani-based militant and terrorist organization that is most famous for a 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India during which operatives targeted the financial district, a famous hotel landmark, and a Jewish cultural center. Since the 2008 attack, Pakistan banned Lashkar-e-Taiba and prosecuted former members. However, the government tacitly supported the organization in the 1990s and it continues to operate within Pakistan through a number of offshoot groups (Macander, 2021).