On Radicalism a Study of Political Methods in the Shadow Land Between Activism and Terrorism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
On Radicalism A Study of Political Methods in the Shadow Land between Activism and Terrorism Sophie Sjöqvist Uppsala University Political Science Bachelorettes thesis 2014 Instructor: Katarina Barrling LIST OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: ON RADICALISM 4 METHODOLOGY 8 THE SELECTION OF ORGANISATIONS AND INFORMANTS 8 THE INTERVIEWS 12 THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS 12 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 12 ANALYSIS OF FOUR ACCOUNTS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 13 ANTIFASCISTISK AKTION VÄST 13 ALLT ÅT ALLA UPPSALA 16 NORDISK UNGDOM 18 SVENSKA MOTSTÅNDSRÖRELSEN SUMMARY 22 CONCLUSION 22 REFERENCES 24 APPENDIX 26 2 Introduction If the spectrum of political extra-parliamentary groups is vast, the range of their methods of participating in political life is even vaster. The span of the activities and practices used reaches from peaceful undertakings, like pamphlet distribution and poster placarding, to warlike deeds such as the killing of clueless civilians. The common factor of these acts is that they are all executed to reach political goals. Aside from that, the dissimilarity is immeasurable. In the attempt to describe political methods of participation among such groups, it is therefore useful to create a categorisation to give us a better general understanding of this vast landscape. Conventionally, a line has been drawn between legal and illegal methods of participation to do so, where the usage of illegal methods, and especially violence, often have been stamped directly as terrorism. However, this way of categorizing methods of activism can be quite an obtuse instrument to use, especially when attempting to understand groups using illegal methods. A more delicate tool is needed to enhance the understanding of such groups. The aim of this paper is to show that there is an important distinction between political radicalism and the previously more salient categories of political activism: activism and terrorism. More precisely, the question asked is the following: Is there any support for the need of radicalism as a way of classifying political activist groups? The distinction has not been entirely clear in previous research on political participation among activist groups, and this study intends to show why the distinction is vital to attain a more nuanced perception of the field. It means to do so through analysing methods of political participation among Swedish extra-parliamentary groups with revolutionary agendas. The result will show a deficiency in the way political actions has so far been defined, and suggest a stronger emphasis on radicalism as its own subcategory to political participation in the future. This study is partitioned into two different main sections: the first one provides a theoretical framework for the research field of political participation and a background to the concept of radicalism. It also presents a classification of political methods that aims to show the importance of radicalism as a subcategory of political participation of its own. Already at this point, it should be alleged that this classification is very much based upon previous research and that this study’s aim is to clarify the importance of properly making this distinction. In the second section, an analysis of the interview material will be performed, to show that there is a proper empirical foundation for distinguishing radicalism* as its own subcategory parted from activism and terrorism. In between the two, the methodology used will be discussed. * To clarify, all of the groups interviewed are radical in the sense that they have what is usually called radical opinions, meaning their opinions are extreme relatively to mainstream political views. However, the opinions are not the goal of this categorization. Rather, what we hope to achieve here is a classification of the practical methods of the groups, to be able to determine radicalism as an important sub category of political actions (and not thought and opinions). 3 Theoretical framework: On radicalism The field of research on which this study is based and wishes to build on, is that of political participation. Because of the vastness of this area of study, it is unrealistic to give a full description of the diverse means and methods that have been created to understand the different modes of such participation. Rather, this section means to give a critical account of the background to the type of political participation relevant for this paper, namely the more active, or if so preferred, aggressive forms of political participation often seen among extra-parliamentary groups. There is no conclusive definition of what constitutes political participation. Traditionally, it has been seen as the usage of more conventional methods, such as becoming a member of a political party or signing a petition, to affect the rule of a state. Verba and Nie (1972) argues that political participation refers to those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take. This type of definition is common still at present day. Riley (2010) defines it as a set of rights and duties that involve formally organized civic and political activities (i.e. voting, or joining a political party). Definitions such as these largely exclude more extravagant forms of activism, as well as participation that are not aimed directly at affecting the government. Thus, such definitions largely reject the kind of participation pertinent for this study, namely extra- parliamentary political action. However, there are more comprehensive definitions as well. A common way of including more “extreme” methods of participation is to separate legal and illegal behaviour. Muller (1981) differentiates democratic participation, which is defined as conventional methods (voting, contacting politicians) and unconventional methods (boycotts and demonstrations) of legal political activities in democracies, to aggressive participation, defined as civil disobedience and political violence. The concept relevant for this study, namely that of political activism (which in it self is a sub category to political participation), lies somewhere in-between these two categories. Groups that call themselves activists often perform activities that could be categorized under both of these categories, and therefore the line between them can be quite blurred. Let us illustrate this with an example. A common method used by activist groups is to demonstrate. During such demonstrations, acts of civilian disobedience are not unusual. In fact, many demonstrations are in themselves acts of civilian disobedience. To illustrate even further: the 1 of may 2014, Christian activists demonstrated against the etno-nationalistic group Svenskarnas Parti (the Party of the Swedish) through sitting down in the middle of the, by Swedish authorities pre-determined, marked-out route for Svenskarnas Parti. When the police told them to move, they refused and eventually they were dragged of the road and later convicted. This was a demonstration, but also an act of civilian disobedience. The point being made is that it is possible to problematize Muller’s dichotomous definition of political participation, through a closer investigation of methods used by extra-parliamentary activist groups. To clarify, since many extra- parliamentary groups acts somewhere in-between Muller’s two categories, it is useful to 4 further explore whether new categorizations can be made to achieve a better understanding of them. Muller’s categorisation is not sufficient to do so. A definition that better captures activist behaviour is Corning and Myer’s (2002) definition of activism as a range of behaviours spanning from low risk, passive and institutionalized acts to high- risk, active and unconventional behaviours. It shows the vide range of methods that can be used by the same group but still be called activist. However, the aim of this paper is to show the need of an even more nuanced classification of such methods, namely to make a distinction between activism, radicalism and terrorism. To find research previously conducted on radicalism as its own concept has proven quite difficult, since it often has been hidden within the notions of activisms (see Corning and Myers; 2002) and terrorism (Futrell & Brents, 2003; Gunning, 2004). The actual word radicalism has very rarely been used within the field of political activism. Instead, when classifying groups, the distinction seems to have been lying between activism and terrorism. That is, what this paper argues to be characteristics of radicalism has been defined as characteristics of both activism and terrorism. However, by only using the notions of activism as opposed to terrorism to describe the landscape of political activism among extra-parliamentary groups, an important middle stage in which much of the extra-parliamentary action takes place is likely to be missed. To clarify further; within the research field of political activism, certain common subcategories can be distinguished. Traditionally these seem to have been activism and terrorism. This paper argues that radicalism also should be a subcategory of its own, making the scale looking like this: activism – radicalism – terrorism. In doing this, a more nuanced image of political activism can be attained. Moskalenko and McCauley (2009) have conducted one of the few studies in which radicalism has been included as its own concept. They argue there is an important difference between activism