To what extent is terrorism an effective and legitimate mechanism

Before I can answer this question it is necessary to define the parameters. For example power is such an open term in this context a definition would make an answer possible.

So following that thought I will define all the open terms to clarify the final question.So what is terrorism? According to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989:"...'terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear" (Walker 2002), p.

20)As you can see this is a quite broad definition and includes many acts that some people would not consider terrorism, at least as it exists today. The later updates to this legislation made it less of a definition but more of a check list for terrorism.If you assume that terrorism is a form of influence, which largely it is, then the most basic definition would be Dahl's work on influence. Take Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush or A and B respectively. A (Bin Laden) allegedly attacks the World Trade Centres with the goal of making B (Bush) leave the Arab world.

However A's actions did not have the desired outcome. This is known as "Negative Influence" (1963 p. 37). Therefore if you take "negative influence" to the extreme you have basic terrorism.As I touched on in the previous paragraph terrorism very rarely has the exact desired effect. More often than not the terrorist act has the opposite effect.

Osama Bin Laden wanted the Americans out of the Arab world and now there's a greater military presence than before and even the C.I.A are getting involved. So the question is, is terrorism effective? The answer would seem to be no, however Bin Laden proved that the Western world could not afford to ignore Al Qaida and therefore the West were drawn into a military conflict and Al Qaida had made their point.To answer "Is terrorism effective?" you have to look at whether it is legitimate or not.

"Legitimacy means that there are good arguments for a political order's claim to be recognised as right and just; a legitimate order deserves recognition. Legitimacy means a political order's worthwhileness to be recognised." (Plant 1991 preface p.2).So by engaging a terrorist organisation in a military conflict or in negotiations you legitimise their actions.

Again taking the World Trade Centre's and the series of air strikes on Afghanistan afterwards effectively makes Al Qaida's actions legitimate. This is the same for all terrorist organisations. If a terrorist group carries out a military act such as bombing and then the Government responds by going into talks with the group responsible then the Government has recognised the terrorists as a legitimate political group thus they cease being a terrorist group.So far I have shown that terrorism is effective and can be legitimised by the state in question; however I have yet to ascertain whether terrorism can be called a mechanism of power.What is power? This is the hardest element to define in both the political world and the question. Dahl set out to discover who has power by looking at who has power.

Everyday people have the right to vote in this and most other Western cultures and so can exercise their power over the state. Without the little people the perceived group who has power would have none. So then if a terrorist organisation is just a group of like minded people who have been failed by their traditional means of exerting power on the leaders. Then terrorist acts are just another form of attempting to exert their power on the state.

Dahl recognised that a set agreeable definition of power does not exist and that other authors use power, influence, might etc as interchangeable terms for the power. Dahl talks about the "Three Fallacies in the analysis of Power:1. The Lump-of-Power Fallacy: Power is thought of often as if it were a single, solid unbreakable lump. The lump can be passed from one actor to another, but cannot be shared.

Either one has the power or one has no power...but in society and politics things rarely fall neatly into two and two piles..

.dichotomies are often misleading...

there is no reason why power....

need(s) to be conceived of in this fashion.2. Confounding Power with Resources: When we simply define influence or power as equivalent to resources, we not only lose specificity as to the subject matter but also we ignore an important empirical problem - whether and how the relation of influence is to be explained by the way in which one of the actors in the relationship uses resources.3. Confounding Power with Rewards and Deprivations: If we were to define influence or power as exactly equivalent to its consequences for the allocation of rewards and deprivations, we once again would deal with empirical questions.

..we would not demonstrate a relationship, we would proclaim it." (Dahl, 1963 p.

20-22)Dahl quite clearly shows that defining power, in any of its various forms, is seemingly impossible. Therefore if we leave the defining of power as a whole to the political scientists for now and look at terrorism as a mechanism of power. As I have previously mentioned terrorism is just a form of exerting power by the powerless but after looking at the three fallacies of power above we can see that this assumption is wrong. Terrorists have chosen to attempt to exert their power from outside the established arrangement be it the I.R.

A in Ireland or Al Qaida in Afghanistan and the surrounding area. If I take the I.R.A further the members still have the power to vote as they are anonymous and they even have a legal, legitimate political party that shares in the decision making in Northern Ireland.

By allowing Sinn Fein into the power sharing executive in Northern Ireland it has made the actions of their militia, the I.R.A, legit.It's easy to think of power as an all encompassing entity but as I have tried to show in this essay is that it is just a slightly larger member three factors. Effectiveness, Legitimacy and Power.

For example if you have power you can legitimise your actions thus this is an effective means. If you take Hitler for an example of this.The persecution of the Jewish population of Germany and the conquered areas shows that Hitler had power; he set up an effective fashion to remove the Jew's and then legitimised his actions by claiming the Jewish people were a plague on German society. I realise Hitler was not a terrorist in the traditional sense but I was using it to illustrate the fact that power, legitimacy and effectiveness are interchangeable much like might, coercion, influence and force are all interchangeable with power.So to answer the question terrorism is effective if the target responds in anyway and similarly terrorists are legitimised if the target responds.

So in effect terrorism is an effective and legitimate mechanism of power.