CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE
REVIEW ON THE IMPACT OF
ETHNIC MILITANCY ON NIGERIA NATIONAL SECURITY, 1999-2015
2.1 Literature Review
This
chapter provides a conceptual overview of ethnic militancy and its counter-measures,
as well as current and past international
security environments, with
specific reference to Militancy, ethnic Militancy, global
Militancy, and national security. The
main point of
departure of this
chapter and study
is that ethnic militancy is
an intricate phenomenon which
has occurred in Nigeria
for over three decades. This
chapter aims to place ethnic Militancy in a conceptual
framework and to analyse the links
between ethnic Militancy
and the Nigerian
security environment. This
will set the tone
for the following
chapters in which
links between ethnic
Militancy and national security in Nigeria will be
identified and analysed.
2.1.1
Ethnic Militancy
A
definitive and holistic
definition of Militancy
is hard to
achieve in the
contemporary world. One person’s definition of Militancy is sometimes
another’s definition of a freedom fighter.
Martin (2003) argues
that governments have
developed definitions of Militancy;
individual agencies within
governments have adopted
definitions; non-governmental organisations
have developed their
definitions; and academic
experts have suggested and analysed definitional constructs.
This lack
of accord, which
exists throughout the
public and private
sectors, is an acknowledged reality
in the study
of political violence.
Academics, such as Stern
and Gearson, who have developed definitions of, and viewpoints
regarding, Militancy, have illustrated this discernible lack of concurrence.
Stern (1997) defines Militancy as “an act or threat of violence against
non-combatants with the objective of exacting revenge; intimidating, or
otherwise influencing an audience”. Her definition avoids circumscribing a
perpetrator or purpose. It allows for a range of possible actors (states or
their deputies, international groups, or
a single individual),
pursuing their assumed
goals (political, religious, or
economic), and for murder for its own sake. Gearson, (2002) states that
the question of
what Militancy is,
has disappeared into
an academic dead-end, never to return in a meaningful way
for policy-makers or the public. The uncertainty over a suitable definition
still exists within individual governments.
Governments, government
departments and governmental
organisations, as well
as academics, tend to differ
when attempting to
define the act
of Militancy.
The
US State Department defines
Militancy in its Patterns
of Global Militancy of
2003 as:
premeditated, politically-motivated violence
perpetrated against non-combatant
targets by sub-national groups
or clandestine agents,
usually intended to
influence an audience”. The
US Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI)
has, however, defined Militancy somewhat differently in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Militancy Report of 2000/2001 as: “the
unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property, or the threat
to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any
section of the
public in order
to promote political,
social or ideological
objectives”.
The objectives of the acts of
Militancy in the two definitions are marginally different.
Difference in
definition also exist
between countries and
their allies. The United Kingdom (UK)
defines Militancy in its
Militancy Act of 2000.
The Act states
that Militancy can mean the “threat of, as well as the use of, an
action”.
The Act dictates that this “action”
can occur anywhere
within, or outside
of, the UK.
Similarly, the persons, property or government affected by the
threat or action itself can be situated anywhere in the world. The purpose of
the action or threat is important for the definition of Militancy.
The purpose must be to influence
government or “to intimidate the public or a section of the public” for any
“political, religious or ideological cause”.
In South Africa militant activity is defined in the Protection of
Constitutional Democracy against Militant and Related Activities Act of 2004 as
an act, in or outside the Republic, which
“involves the systematic,
repeated or arbitrary
use of violence
by any means
or method”. The definition includes not only acts of militant violence,
but also the threat thereof when it states that militant activities are
intended to “intimidate, or to induce or cause feelings of insecurity within,
the public, or a segment of the public…”.
The
AU, formerly known
as the OAU,
defined an act
of Militancy in the
OAU Algiers Convention on the Prevention
and Combating of Militancy of 1997 as:
(a)
any act which
is a violation
of the criminal laws
of a State
Party and which may
endanger the life,
physical integrity or
freedom of, or
cause serious injury or death to, any person, any number or group of
persons; or cause or may
cause damage to
public or private
property, natural resources, environmental
or cultural heritage
and is calculated
or intended to:
(i) Intimidate, put fear into, force, coerce
or induce any government, body, institution,
the general public
or any segment
thereof, to do,
or abstain from doing, any act;
or to adopt or abandon a particular standpoint; or to act according to certain
principles; or
(ii) Disrupt any public service,
the delivery of any essential service to the public or to create a public
emergency; or
(iii) Create general insurrection
in a State.
(b) any promotion, sponsoring,
contribution to, command, aid,
incitement, encouragement, attempt, threat,
conspiracy, organising, or
procurement of any person, with the intent to commit any act referred to
in paragraph (a) (i) to (iii).
Not
even the UN
has developed a
holistically agreed-upon definition
of Militancy. The UN
does however use
an “academic consensus
definition”, which was
written by Militancy expert
Schmid.
The
definition describes Militancy
as an “anxiety-inspiring method of
repeated violent action”
which is utilised
by secretive and
partly secretive
“individuals, groups or
state actors”.
These “methods of repeated violent
action” are used for “personal, criminal or political reasons”, whereby the
“direct targets of violence are not the main targets”.
Schmid also recommended the UN’s
short legal definition of a Militancy act as the “peacetime equivalent of a war
crime”. This short definition is another
example of the term “Militancy” being broadly defined (United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime).
Militancy is inevitably about
power, the pursuit of power, the attainment of power, and the application of power
to achieve political change. Militants, present and past, have used violence,
or equally important, the threat of violence, in pursuit of a political aim.
Whittaker (2003) states
that Militancy, in the most
widely-accepted contemporary
usage of the term, is “fundamentally and inherently political”. This includes
the pursuit of domestic, regional, continental and international political
objectives.
Just as there are different
definitions of Militancy, there are different types of Militancy. These
different types have diverse characteristics, causes and outcomes.
Experts and critics usually agree
on the forms of Militancy found in the modern political environment. Although
different tags are
sometimes attached, the
same typologies are
repeatedly found in academic and policy analyses, and these are
generally agreed upon by experts.
Martin (2003) describes the
following types of Militancy practised in the modern global environment:
- State
Militancy, Militancy which comes “from above”.
This is committed by a government against its perceived enemies. State
Militancy can be directed externally against adversaries in the international
domain, or internationally against domestic enemies.
-
Dissident Militancy, which is “from below”. This
is committed by
non-state movements and groups
against governments, ethno-national groups,
religious groups, and other perceived enemies.
-
Religious Militancy, Militancy
encouraged by an
integral belief that
a spiritual power has
endorsed and commanded,
the application of
militant violence for
the superior glory of
the faith. Examples of such militant groups are
Hezbollah, Hamas and Boko Haram.
-
Criminal Militancy, Militancy motivated solely by profit. Organised
criminal enterprises (such as the
Mafia) accumulate profits
from criminal activities
for personal enhancement. Criminal-political militant movements, such
as Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers, accrue profits to sustain their movements.
-
International Militancy, Militancy that spills across national borders
throughout the world. Targets are
selected because of
their value as
symbols of international interests, usually for the
purpose of political propaganda.
Al Qaeda is an example of such a
militant organisation, even though it is also driven by religious motives.
Wilkinson (2000) broad ethnic the
typology of contemporary Militancy by adding the following types of
Militancy:
-
Nationalist militant groups: these seek political independence. Their
activities can span from the territory they want to govern, to targets abroad.
ETA (Spain) and the IRA are both examples of such nationalist militant
organisations.
-
Ideological militants: these intend to impel the entire political,
economic and social structures of a state to the extreme right or left. Italy’s
Red Brigade and Germany’s RAF are both examples of ideological militant groups
which existed in the past.
-
Single-issue militant groups,
these do not
aim to change
an entire political structure, but to change only an
explicit policy or practice within a certain community. Violent animal-rights
groups can be seen as an example.
Wilkinson (2001),
goes further by
describing yet another
type of Militancy
which increased
significantly during the
1980s and 1990s,
namely ethnic Militancy.
He describes how
mass terror was
used during “ethnic
and ethno-religious conflicts” whereby many civilians were driven
from their livelihoods and countries. Ethnic Militancy was used
in the past
for purposes of
“ethnic cleansing” in
countries like Rwanda, Burundi and Kosovo.
The
world has also
witnessed many different
forms of ethnic
Militancy over the past
few decades. Ethnic
militant groups, even
though their objectives
are also political, practise
a variety of
the methods utilised
by other militant
groups. The next section
aims to define
and describe ethnic
Militancy as a
contemporary form of Militancy.
2.1.2 Forms of Ethnic Militancy
Ethnic
Militancy is a form of political violence
or the threat
of violence by
groups or individuals
who deliberately target civilians
or non-combatants in
order to influence
the behaviour and actions
of targeted publics
and governments.
Visit www.researchshelf.com
for complete project materials, project topics, past examination questions and
answers, assignments, research proposals,
meet fellow students online, meet with lecturers and ask for help, read
and post news (Campus News). Registration is Free Of Charge (FOC).
Note also that
our mobile app will soon be launched where you can view all the above features
on your mobile devices and don’t forget to request for any material you need
that is not on our website through contact us page.
No comments:
Post a Comment