Justin Porter

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

            Categorizing acts of political violence is not an easy task. The operational definitions for the specific types of political violence vary greatly among political scientist. I will study the case of the Red Shirt Riots that occurred in, Thailand between March and May of 2010. David J. Samuels’s definition of terrorism is too narrow, and insufficient to truly encapsulate the entire ideology behind acts of terror. I will show that these riots were acts of terrorism to further the political agenda of the red shirts, even though Samuel’s definition would not restrict the categorization of these as acts as terrorism.

David J. Samuels’s book defines terrorism as “the threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, particularly against civilian targets” (Samuels 2013, 276). This definition is far too narrow to truly encapsulate all that terrorism is. Though it is hard to construct a definition narrow enough that to categorize events, the definition must also be able to be applied more generally to a broader scope of political violence. In Spiegel’s text he defines terrorism by saying, “not all threats to states’ security come from other states. Groups within countries or international networks operating across national boundaries can undermine a state’s security and stability or achieve other political objectives [by] the use of violence to coerce a target group into meeting political demands” (Spiegel 2012, 304). This definition and I think it improves greatly on the definition given by Samuels.

Thailand has experienced political violence in the past few years. There has been incredible tension between two political groups known respectively as the Yellow Shirts and the Red Shirts. One group is conservative, and one is liberal. Thus, they both struggle to compromise on an effective way to help the country to progress. As the tensions between these two groups rose, the Red Shirts who share similar ideologies, and an extreme pride and perseverance for their cause began to gather in Bangkok throughout March 2010.

The Red Shirts had a political goal to dissolve parliament and hold early elections for a new Prime Minister. As the political protests grew, the government deployed troops to oversee the gathering and maintain peace. The Red Shirts eventually burned buildings, exploded grenades in front of government owned banks, destroyed public transportation buses and even set fire to Central World-a major shopping center-causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. These acts of terror were perpetrated by the Red Shirts in order to instill fear in the government and all those who supported them; as well as cause fear and terror throughout the country to further the Red Shirt political agenda. They wanted to force the government to accept their political demands.

            According to Samuel’s definitions of political violence, these acts of violence tend to be defined more under the Civil War category. According to Samuels civil wars include acts of political violence against governments. During the violence, protesters stockpiled military equipment including automatic rifles, batons, anti-aircraft guns, and armor. These actions tend to categorize these actions under civil war. But according to Spiegel, these riots can still be considered terrorism.

One of the strengths of Samuel’s definition is proved by these events. According to Samuels, “terrorists…rarely achieve their long-term political goals” (Samuels 2013, 276). These peaceful gatherings escalated quickly when Red Shirts demanded an early election and a resignation of the Prime Minister. Eventually, an early election was held but there still exists major strife among Thai citizens, and the country is still divided politically.

By the end of this conflict nearly two months later, over 100 Thai people had lost their lives-both military personnel and citizens alike. Thailand’s Red Shirt Riots were acts of terrorism. Samuels’s definition suggests this, in part. Spiegel’s definition suggests it as well. The actions taken by the Red Shirts against the government were acts of terrorism. The final definition that combines both Samuels and Spiegel’s definition and is all encompassing is:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals, a group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby…the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity)…and serve as message generators. (Schmid and Jongman 1988)

The terrorist acts of the Red Shirts were terror-inspiring acts of violence to further their political agenda. Thus, the Red Shirt riots of 2010 can be categorized not as civil war, but as terrorism.

  

REFERENCES

Samuels, David J. 2013. Comparative politics. Boston: Pearson.

Schmid and Jongman. 1988. Political terrorism:  A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, databases, theories, and literature. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Spiegel, Steven L., Elizabeth Mathews, Jennifer Taw, and Kristen Williams. 2012. World politics in a new era. New York: Oxford University Press.