Defensive Political Violence

What is defensive political violence? It is violence justified by the ethical and judicial rules of necessity and self-defence. It differs from the just war doctrine because these rules do not allow attacks on innocent persons. Intentional collateral damage is categorically excluded. Consequently, defensive political violence is per definition not terrorism, because terrorism is, as we all know, defined as attacks on innocents.

Defensive political violence is not opposed to the principles of democracy. Its purpose is not to drastically change the global economic system. That can’t be done with violence. In the 19th century, communists tried to change the system, and the result was mass murder. Activists should remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Violent attempts to destroy capitalism only reveal illusions of grandeur.

Politicians and bureaucrats should not be attacked because the public will view such attacks as an assault on democracy. Terrorists like RAF and ETA have fought governments for years, but they have all failed. It just don’t work. 9/11 backfired upon al-Qaida. The Taliban government is gone, and new high towers are about to be built.

Violence is not a good way to change nations or global systems. The Americans tried to change Iraq, but made so many mistakes that they created the conditions for a civil war. A huge amount of money and resources is needed to build a democracy in Iraq. It will hopefully be done one day, but activists will never have the capacity to bring a system down and successfully build a better one. Activists should learn from the past and not repeat others' mistakes.

Defensive political violence is not revolutionary. It is not even anti-capitalistic. Its only objective is to protect individual persons who are illegally attacked by hostile political, economical, or religious groups. Afro-Americans can use defensive political violence against Ku Klux Klan, and the concept can also justify the use of force by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian terrorists. It is independent of politics, but it is called political because the principles of self-defence and necessity are applied in contexts which are political. These political contexts are the only reason why defensive political violence is different from “ordinary” self-defence and necessity. Such contexts can make it more difficult to judge when violence based on self-defence and necessity is justified, but the principles applied are basically the same as in situations where citizens are attacked by common criminals in the streets or in their own homes.

Defensive political violence presupposes that all non-violent alternatives are tried before physical force is used as the last option possible.

The advantage of defensive political violence is that its justifications are not based on extremism, on the contrary. Its premises are the same as the legal principles of self-defence and necessity, and this means that it is difficult for the police to know who are militant activists because there will not be any signs of extremism that will give them away. It could be anyone - even a law-abiding priest. For instance, one highly respected professor in Norway studied the justifications of defensive political violence and said discreetly that he had a military education that could be useful. Another famous Norwegian author said that he changed his view of violence after he studied the arguments in favour of defensive militant operations. Defensive political violence is independent of special interests, it is based on universal principles, and therefore it is impossible for the police to detect who are potential activists.

Defensive political violence can differ from the strategy of movements like the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, because legal defence activists try not to fight in the vicinity of poor communities where innocent civilians risk becoming victims of violence perpetrated by brutal soldiers or paramilitary groups paid to protect the interests of multinational firms or oppressive governments. Instead, the fighting is done in Western cities, New York and Tokyo for instance. The oppressors are attacked in their own homes, while they eat dinner at fancy restaurants or lie on the beaches of the French Riviera. Revenge on poor communities will be counterproductive because the assassination of a CEO in Europe or the U.S. will bring many journalists to the area where the CEO's company attack oppressed people. Revenge and further oppression will only prove that defensive political violence was justified.