Terrorism’s impact on the regime

Terrorist acts in Turkey are often of an international nature, though there is little continuity from one act to the next. In times of political change, these acts can heavily influence the political decisions makers’ profiles and policies. If the terrorist acts suddenly stop, they can lead the decision makers to declare success and garner public support, deserved or otherwise. A reduction in attacks can also indicate an implicit statement of approval for the current power by the terrorist group. On the contrary, if terrorist acts become more frequent, the government in power is likely to have little international approval, with vocal opponents to its policies. In the large part, at the core of terrorism is an extreme expression of these political attitudes; a form of questioning or supporting the political regimes.

The acts themselves are never sufficient for terrorist groups to achieve their goals, but they often incite states to take countermeasures that can serve to justify in the eyes of terrorist sympathizers the continuation of the terrorist acts. The gravity of the acts also escalates the once-limited scope of servicemen and civil servants, which now extends to the uninvolved civilian population.

For many people to whom terrorism was a distant specter, the threat has become much more real and present in their daily lives. These attacks on civilians tend to highlight lines of ethnic divisions above all else, as the political associations are less clear. This is a dangerous game that disintegrates ties between ethnic groups; fragile bonds torn apart by the devastation of terror. The fight against terrorism cannot be distanced from the acts themselves, and the case is not different when civilians are involved. The resulting conflict is born of a deep injury and bitterness, an emotion which can serve to legitimize the means of the fight, regardless of the ethical implications behind the actions taken. Another aspect of this legitimization process is the rhetoric about destroying the environments that foster terrorism. In a time when no one wants to discuss the socioeconomic basis of the terrorism, the proposed precautions automatically fall into the military domain. The extreme damage done by terrorist acts often carries with it an equally extreme political legitimization. In other words, nobody complains about the authoritarian attitudes adopted by the state in its fights to quell terrorism. This nationalistic and monolithic approach pushes terrorist groups and their supporters to respond in kind, only accelerating the disintegration.

In brief, terror pushes a state toward authoritarianism. This suggests that democracy is not enough to fight the menace on its own, strengthening the feeling that the defense of the human rights, democratization and political transparency are moves in favor of terrorism. This fallacy must be recognized for what it is. Authoritarianism is nothing more than the accomplished goal of terrorism; democracy is the system that refuses to be its cradle.