Blog 8

Matt Westover

Poli Sci. 150

Dr. Hawkins

11/8/12

Blog 8

                In 2009, the radical Nigerian Islamist group known as Boko Haram (Hausa for “Western education is sinful”) declared all-out jihad and made known its intentions to subject all of Nigeria to Islamist rule under Shariah Law. In July of the selfsame year, a series of coordinated attacks were carried out that have been widely branded as terrorist actions. When the dust had finally settled, hundreds had died in fires set by arsonists to multiple churches, a police station, and a prison. Likewise, numerous policemen and other civilians were killed by attackers on motorcycle. The bloodshed and destruction finally ceased when a military/police joint action quashed it and captured the group’s then-leader₁. The majority of the world has categorized this violence as terrorism, but it is worth investigating whether or not definitions of terrorism proposed in academia jibe with these events, particular the definition given by comparative political scientist David J. Samuels.

                I his collegiate text, simply entitled “Comparative Politics”, Samuels defines terrorism as the “threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, directed particularly against civilian targets”₂. Clearly, this definition is only partially fitting for the aforementioned incident in Nigeria. The Boko Haram “Uprising” of 2009 did indeed consist of violence for political purposes, and the targets were civilian, but it cannot be categorized as being solely political in nature, as it contained an overwhelming religious element. Yes, religion is a salient form of political identity, but to lump a religious motivation for terrorist action into the category of “political purposes” is to commit an injustice. Boko Haram seeks to displace the Nigerian government with hardline adherents of Shariah Law, and this motivation was the instigator of the July, 2009 events. The goal of overthrowing and replacing the government is certainly political, but the implementation of Shariah Law and the ouster of essentially all things secular are inherently religious notions.

A better definition of terrorism than Samuel’s could perhaps be proposed by allowing for more room to incorporate the frequently seen religious elements of terrorist action. Samuel’s definition is not wrong, just a tad incomplete, although it provides a workable base for the construction of a superior classification. Something along the lines of “the threatened or actual use of violence for political or religious gain (often a melding of the two) perpetuated by non-state actors, usually targeted towards civillians” would be a much more serviceable working definition, simply because so many instances of modern-day terrorism are either completely religious, or contain religious undertones, and the attacks perpetuated by Boko Haram are no exception.

It is only fair to note that Samuels does mention religious motivation as a causal factor of “suicide terrorism”, as well as alludes to the religious nature of certain attacks perpetrated in Mumbai, India, but the bold-faced definition given in his text is lacking. One who glanced through the text only to skim through the glossary terms would find a definition of terrorism without any sort of mention of religion, and would have an incomplete picture presented to them as a result.

The definition of terrorism provided by Samuel’s is not wrong, or even bad per se, it is simply lacking in detail. The Boko Haram attacks in 2009 are a microcosm of a bigger, nearly worldwide wave of Islamist terror, and are typical of modern-day terrorist attacks. The religious element of most acts of terrorism that we witness cannot be understated, but Samuels does just that. In a modern-day geopolitical context, any serviceable definition of terrorism must contain some mention of possible religious motivation.

                               

₁ “Boko Haram attacks-timeline”. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/boko-haram-timeline-nigeria. September 25, 2012.

₂  David J. Samuels. “Comparative Politics”. Pearson Education Inc. 2013. P.276.