Terrorism: A New Definition

Terrorism: A New Definition

One of the greatest reasons for any order in political science is based around widely accepted definitions. The unique vocabulary found in this domain is what allows political analysts to know that they are discussing the exact same principle. Some of the words are taken by the media and transmitted into the popular sector, where we, the civilians, often learn to use them incorrectly. The purpose of this blog is to identify a specific instance of political violence and to see what the closest definition fits. If the definition does not fit our moment of political violence, we are to create one that is more correct.

Since the year 1989, The Tiananmen Square Massacre has been an issue of international debate. Some of the greatest reasons of dispute towards this subject are due to the idea that the Chinese government covered up the details of the incident. This makes the research of reputable sources difficult to pin down. For example, there has never been an official death toll released. Numbers ranging from 5,000 down to 180 have been released as a possible death toll, each from a source as disreputable as the next. What is more reliable is the information from the rest of the nation, which poured in the following day. These are reports of violence and revolts in reaction to the news of the massacre. One such report from Shanghai reads[1],

At 8:45 pm the number 161 train from Beijing ran over nine people who had gathered at the spectacle of a blocked locomotive. Five of them died. By 10 pm more than thirty thousand people had gathered at the scene, interrupting rail traffic and creating a disturbance. Protesters beat up the train engineer, set fire to railcars, and prevented fire trucks from entering the site.

Although not mentioned in this quotation, those involved in Shanghai were also students, similar to Tiananmen Square. This is evidence that the events in Tiananmen Square were grievous. Now let’s see how the Tiananmen Square Massacre should be defined.

            Political Violence[2] is defined as “Use of force by state or non-state parties to achieve political purposes.” Following that definition, The Tiananmen Square Massacre is a parallel of political violence. Now the question is to find what sort of political violence it is. I propose that the most correct term to use would be terrorism, however not terrorism as if currently exists. Terrorism is defined[3] as, “A threatened or actual use of violence for political reasons by non-state actors, usually directed towards civilian targets.” I submit that either a new term should be created or the definition must be modified. Were a new term to be created, it could be something like “Government Terrorism” which would describe terrorism that is induced by a government, directed toward the people, with political purposes. Another option would be to alter the current definition of terrorism, simply by adding the clarification that it could be state or non-state actors who direct the violence towards civilians. One may ask why this event couldn’t go under the category of civil war, as that pits a government and its people against each other. The reason this wouldn’t work is because a civil war must last for more than a year to be recognized as such. Many more alterations would need to be imposed upon definitions in the case that it’s categorized as a civil war. The evens of Tiananmen Square in 1989 are most closely related to terrorism; or rather would require the least changes in definitions in being classified as terrorism.

            While definitions in political science provide for much organization, it must also limit the boundaries in which certain things could be categorized. In the case of Tiananmen Square, it is necessary to change the definition in order to more fully see the reaches of terrorism. As time and events continue, it is often necessary that definitions be broadened to allow for instances to be properly documented.

---

[1] Tiananmen Papers, 389

[2] David J. Samuels, Comparative Politics,  258

[3] David J. Samuels, Comparative Politics,  276