Does Nonviolence Benefit Terrorist Organizations more than Violence?

• In Event: Dynamics of Terrorism

Abstract

Terror groups are known for their use of violent strategies for political purposes, which include intimidation, kidnapping, extortion and perpetration of attacks on civilian targets. However, many of these groups do not solely rely on violence; they also utilize a range of nonviolent activities such as providing social services and public goods to targeted communities, which may vary from charity work, education, and healthcare provisions to disaster relief. What purposes do these different strategy profiles serve insofar as terror groups are concerned? We argue that different strategies serve different purposes for militant groups. Consequently, terrorist organizations that use a combination of violent and nonviolent strategies are on average more appealing to potential recruits and more effective in achieving certain outcomes than organizations that solely use violent tactics. This effectiveness manifests itself in two particular outcomes: recruitment and lethality. Using the Reputation of Terror Groups Dataset (2016) and the case of Hamas, we demonstrate that organizations that strategically utilize both violent and nonviolent activities are more likely to attract new recruits, experience fewer breakups, and deliver more lethal attacks than those that primarily use violence. In other words, incorporating targeted nonviolent activities benefits terror groups more so than the exclusive use of violence itself.

Authors

• Burcu Pinar Alakoc, University of Chicago

• Michael W Widmeier, Webster University