Terror or terrorism is the indiscriminate use of threats and violence for political purposes. It is perhaps the simplest strategy that a powerless or weak group or organization fighting an organized establishment is tempted to use. The nature of the organization of most terror groups, their support structures, and their objectives often constrain them, forcing them to operate:
- within a tight inner circle,
- with a great deal of fanaticism,
- with limited and thinly spread manpower,
- with light and limited materials or weapons,
- And with a clearly defined objective to bring down their opponents.
Perpetrators of terror with a clearly defined political objective are usually men who are highly committed to a cause but have little or no regard for the nature of its realization. These are people who stretch the notion of the phrase “Tragic Necessity” to the utmost, pitting their causes against humanity.
Terror is a powerful political weapon with a far-reaching social effect. And the recoil effect of an act of terrorism is unpredictable.
As a political weapon, terror might appear to be the most potent option by frustrated but committed advocates of a cause that has been sidelined, snubbed, and denigrated; or by a cause whose activities and members have been suppressed, repressed, and decimated by its opponents, the establishment or the government. These advocates of terror often see themselves and their ideas as potential victims of annihilation at a time when they think they lack the means to openly resist. How far the organization embraces the methods of terror determines the degree of its dehumanization.
Terror fully embraced is more sinister, threatening, and sustainable if it has a base from which to recruit, train, regroup, and replenish. The unacceptability of terror hinges the most on its social effects. And it can be very far-reaching indeed.
The use of violence and threats by a movement against a free, democratic, liberal, progressive, and humane society to intimidate or coerce it, always backfires, with the movement losing its humaneness and purpose in the process. Society in all its strata rejects the movement tainted by terror even if its cause promises to advance the wellbeing of the people. It was the case with the German group Baadar-Meinhof, The Italian Red Brigade, The Japanese Red Army, and FARC-EP of Colombia today. Even the Shining Path of Peru lost its purpose and folded because of the country’s democratization and liberalization. And attacks by the Basque groups ETA (Euzkadi ta Askatasuna) only go to denigrate the genuine grievances of the Basque people. The list is inexhaustible.
Acts of terror by a group or country against a foreign state, especially a free and democratic one, always have the opposite effect of uniting and mobilizing the state that is being terrorized. It makes the victimized state to appreciate its humane values all the more while enabling it to plug the loopholes that make it susceptible to acts of terrorism. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) actually got weakened in its fight against the British because of that. Palestinian Movements tainted their genuine cause with terrorist acts against Israel. Even the Separatist Chechen Movement is ruining its case with attacks against Russian civilians. The Lockerbie bombing and the 1994 Argentina bombing by suspected Iranian agents only strengthened the victimized countries. Above all, the country or group that accepts the use of terror even against the civilian population of the country they are against, ultimately ends up dehumanizing its own society. That is because a policy of hate that justifies the killing of noncombatants, women, and children always turns out to be xenophobic and full of lies; and it feeds on hypocrisy, brainwashing, ideological extremism, or religious fanaticism, which are all shortcomings that will ultimately lead to the demise of the propagators of terrorism and the breakdown of progressive human values in their own societies.
With a base, terror suddenly unleashed against an unpopular, oppressive, repressive, discriminatory, detached, and elitist regime or government has an initial paralyzing effect on society in that it infuses fear, doubt, and a sense of vulnerability into the minds of the oppressive class, while at the same time it stirs the common people into believing that the system they too are against could be brought down. The unleashed terror destroys the confidence the custodians of the repressive system had before, especially in their conviction that they could get away with all their actions against those opposing them. The oligarchy suddenly becomes chaotic in its procedures, planning, and execution of its strategies. The offensive nature of their rule becomes defensive all of a sudden without due preparation. The army and security forces, the administration, and the other agencies and organs enforcing the repression, oppression, fraud, corruption, discrimination, and violence become momentarily immobilized in the initial phases of terrorism. With the terrorists striking at every possible target and with casualties rolling in, the custodians of the dictatorial system start questioning the justification of their policies, the prize they are willing to pay to stay in power, and the chances they have in sustaining assaults from the terrorists. The foot soldiers of the regime (security agencies and intelligence services) that are the shields of the system or regime but not its benefactors, but who trace most of their origins from the majority of the people, start wondering why they have to bear the brunt of the anger against the system when they are not really responsible for it. Why would a patriotic corporal, inspector, captain, lieutenant, colonel, commissioner or general; why would someone who truly loves his country, wishes for its redemption, and aspires for a better role in defending his nation, risk his life and the future of his loved ones by standing against the fire aimed at a corrupt, undemocratic, discriminatory and anti-people system and regime, while the leadership and its clique (the oligarchy) continue to swim in affluence and security? Why would these security forces risk their lives to maintain people in power who do not truly appreciate their worth?
The answer to the above questions is simple. The defenders of the system would fight the terrorists to the bitter end only if they were convinced that the new order the terror organizations would bring with them would be far worse than the current reality.
Still, one cannot ignore the traumas in a society haunted by terror. Besides its infusion of fear and doubt into the establishment, and its destruction and immobilization of the tools of administration, terror as a political weapon used in a society that is not free, has the powerful effect of polarizing it. The unleashing of terror opens a conflict that:
- Pits the repressive oligarchy against the terror group, leaving the patriotic majority in the cold in their demands for democracy, freedom, and liberalism.
- Finds the haves and have-nots drawn further apart.
- Widens the gap between the ignorant and the enlightened.
- Sets the docility of the old against the vibrancy of the young in their quest for freedom, democracy, progress, and transparency.
- Finally brings the idealists against the realists, the pragmatists, the humanists, and the dogmatists.
The use of terror in a genuine cause of freedom or liberation against the oppressive rule of an unrepresentative establishment becomes susceptible to blackmail, mistakes, and dehumanization. Even its limited use without a clearly defined direction exposes the majority of the soldiers and militants of the freedom or liberation struggle to the cruelest and unusual punishments from the oppressive system or establishment. The custodians of the system respond to the acts of terror with vile actions or remedies of their own that are in effect state terrorism. Inhuman in its content, the oppressive establishment nonetheless wins sympathy from the general population and the world at large. The regime suspends human rights; the regime goes further in its excuses and carries out preventive arrests, vile tortures, subornation, and extensive legal murders (through questionable laws); and the regime executes cruel, vindictive, discriminatory and the most unusual punishments against those who oppose them, thereby bundling the terrorists together with the progressive forces of the land that are advocating for liberty, freedom and/or liberation. Having lost the last elements of its humaneness, reacting out of proportion to the threat posed by the terrorists and the freedom demanded by the majority of the people, the oppressive regime or the unrepresentative system in power presses on with open state terrorism through divide and rule by channeling its resources to stir deliberate violence and internal strife. In its desperation, the oligarchy strikes blindly and calculatingly in turns. The innocents find themselves being hit more than opponents of the system by both the establishment and the terror groups, with the terror groups finding themselves blamed for everything. This social chaos degenerates into civil strife with clans fighting against clans, tribes against tribes, religions against one another, races drifting apart, and the different classes becoming irreconcilable. In this situation where terrorism against the state loses its purpose, terrorism by the state prevails and saps the oppressed and freedom-loving majority of whatever little strength they might have left, forcing them to settle for any order the oligarchy can restore. In this case, the terror group’s failure strengthens the dictatorship in power, enabling the system to last longer, even though it actually financed its state terrorism using the public treasury and the sweat of the citizens.
A candid evaluation would, however, reveal that despite the possible glorification of terror by groups or people who feel cornered, the fact that the specter of mistakes or unfortunate accidents looms high takes away its efficacy. Where and who should be the targets? What is the purpose or objective?
A humane exponent of change who convinces himself that the use of terror is tragic but necessary in a tormenting situation, risks corrupting his soul in the process, especially if his action gets out of control. Even the line that the use of terror should only seek to attract attention to the genuine cause of the unheard and neglected, is basically faulty because the use of terror often or always ends up as a boomerang. A genuine and popular cause tainted with terror that is ill-organized, poorly-targeted, and not clearly defined; one that strikes at the establishment and results in civilian casualties as well, finds itself open to sabotage and blackmail.
The use of terror as a rule by genuine exponents of change is unacceptable. It subjects the movement to defeat, especially if it becomes a weapon of any duration. While a movement might be forgiven for using it as a spark, the shout that would immobilize the system and set off the avalanche, the effect of terror is corrosive against everyone and everything that it touches. And any duration in its utilization would blind the essence of the movement’s true purpose, taking out the humanity embodied in struggles that involve freedom, liberation, democracy, prosperity, and human harmony; and as a consequence, it would open the ranks of the movement to blackmail and denigration. The most moral of men, the sanest of freedom movements, the most dedicated of revolutionaries, and even humanists of all stripes end up losing their purpose if they fail to consider the corrupting influence of terror, even in its short-term use, and especially when they fancy the use of terror as the rule or weapon of survival even against an inhuman establishment. By using terror, they end up betraying the hopes and aspirations of the struggling masses whose interest terror was first invoked to safeguard.
Short-lived Clearly targeted, purposeful, and organized terror in the activities of the ANC, SWAPO, ZANU-ZAPU, and FRELIMO pushed the establishments in South Africa, Namibia, South Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Mozambique respectively to enter into a dialogue that brought the changes that enabled these liberation movements to win power democratically in those countries. The Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria lost its essence because of its blind adoption of terror. Communism considered by some pundits to be the most humane ideology in advocating for the economically and socially deprived lost its humaneness as a political force because of its initial embrace of terror. Lenin’s short-term use of red terror during the Russian Civil War that followed the communist revolution was blown out of proportion when Stalin made it a rule of the Soviet system and a legacy that is haunting the communist ideology today. The examples of the fallouts from the use of terror are inexhaustible. That is why movements that are trying to advance humaneness should become self-critical when their leaders start flirting with terrorism.
.
In the case of Cameroon, the fact that the price for dislodging the system is high does not mean that effective use of terror against the establishment is the only option left. While it might appear attractive to some opponents of the Biya regime and the anachronistic French-imposed system as a whole, exponents of change should bear in mind the fact that even the most effective use of terror against the custodians of the system would likely denigrate the noble objectives of the century-old Kamerunian struggle and cloud the realization of the future New Cameroon.
True an effective use of terror against those in the oligarchy with blood on their hands will mortify the system. True it would open public debate and help to clearly identify the camps. And true it would indicate the seriousness of the forces advocating for a Cameroon that should have a place among the community of free, progressive, and civilized nations. But it would tear society apart and dehumanize it in the process, to an extent that its soul might even get more corrupted than it is at the moment. Mindful of the fact that some exponents of change who oppose the use of terror acknowledge the fact that its use would force the system to take the oppressed struggling masses seriously and make the establishment to understand that their opponents can create a perpetual nightmare by making terror the rule in their struggle, exponents of change should never consider the use of terror in their quest to found the New Cameroon that is free, democratic, united, liberal, progressive, prosperous and pluralistic.
The war of reunification and independence that the UPC (Union of the Populations of Cameroon) was dragged into, following its prohibition and its suppression by the French Trusteeship Administration in Cameroon in 1955, is a classic case. The limited use of terror by the popular liberation movement against the forces that massacred and carried out a genocide against the Cameroonian population ( French forces and the forces of Ahmadou Ahidjo ― the puppet France installed as president of Cameroon), as well as against those the UPC considered traitors, was effectively used to give the popular Cameroonian movement a bad name as a blood-thirsty terrorist group. Thanks to state terrorism, the UPC was denigrated, repressed, and crushed and most of its leaders were killed, imprisoned, or exiled by the Franco-Ahidjo alliance. It was a campaign that went hand in hand with the blackmail and framing of the movement while stigmatizing the UPC support base. It was so effective that the strongly victimized Bamileke and Bassa populations are still the target of stereotypes hatched by Jacques Foccart, the architect of French control in Africa, who did an effective job in presenting the UPC’s war of freedom or liberation in the 1960s as a post-1960 ethnic revolt by the Bamileké and Bassa populations, thereby effectively casting the country’s largest and most nationalistic ethnic group as a national enemy of the rest of Cameroonian peoples, a stigma that still haunts the country today. And men like Jean Forchive etc owed their rise and prominence in the system to their successful use of state terrorism against the UPC.
There is a strong faction in the current Biya regime that envisages the eternal survival of the system through the careful use of state terrorism against the patriotic majority who are being allowed to use their voices, but not their hands and feet, in a sham process that allows for multi-party politics in Cameroon but that prevents democracy from taking roots by denying the people the rights to choose through sham elections that make a mockery of democracy and freedom of choice.
In a nutshell, an organization that uses terror against an establishment, be it its home country or a foreign country, risks tainting itself forever, corrupting its essence, and plunging society into a process of dehumanization that might take decades and even generations to overcome.
Janvier Tchouteu
November 08, 1997
