Assassination Politics

[grarpamp]

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/assassination-has-been-utilized-as-a-political-tool.php

Assassination has been utilized as a political tool

Published: 1st Jan 2015

Introduction

Assassination has been utilized as a political tool since the
beginning of recorded history, marking, altering, or determining the
course of events through murder. Even today, assassination and its
forms, including terrorism, continue to plague most nations throughout
the world. Additional acts of violence, such as ethnic tensions and
coups, executions, and civil wars, continue to frequent societies and
political systems in the 21st century. Unique to assassinations,
whether or not the act is successful does not always reflect failed
consequences; all too often, attempted assassinations are equally
impactful as complete, or deadly, assassinations.

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay
writing service is here to help!

Assassinations and assassination attempts, particularly upon heads of
state, are often highly ranked in terms of political violence and
significance. Besides affecting or killing the victim, assassinations
have direct consequences upon critical political institutions and the
targeted individual’s nation as a whole. As studied and discussed by
political theorists and analysts, assassinations and assassination
attempts of important political figures have far-reaching political
and societal repercussions. Obviously affecting the targeted
government or nation, the sudden and unexpected murder of a head of
state or high-ranking official not only interferes with a nation’s
political effectiveness, but also promulgates terror and unrest within
a government. Most significantly, assassinations and attempts to
assassinate often disturb or change the focus of domestic and foreign
policy within a nation.

As previously mentioned, terrorism is closely related to assassination
and no discussion on the latter would be complete without a discussion
of the former as well. Besides an obvious systematic and deliberate
act of murder, terrorism can also be referred to as either a mass
assassination, or a terroristic assassination. Terrorism, according to
one source, is “assassinations contrived to create a fear sufficient
to destroy a whole system. Terrorism implies a movement whose
objective can only be achieved by repeated assassinations over
relatively long periods of time, for fear dissipates when pressure is
relaxed or exercised intermittently. Similar to assassinations,
terrorism has plagued and continues to plague many (if not most)
nations, often resulting in political chaos or upset. Furthermore, as
with assassinations, terrorism is also saturated with politics;
however, unlike assassinations, terrorism is employed through
strategy, fueled by religious or ecological motives, and carried out
with the ultimate goal of power. Although united by a common
denominator, murder, the conceptual differences between assassinations
and terrorism are profound and worth separate examination, for the
purpose of this study.
The Concept of Assassination

The violent act of assassination is defined as the murder of a (most
likely) political, royal, or public individual. The term is derived
from the order of the Assassins, which was an 11th and 12th century
Muslim sect that advanced its political goals by murdering
high-ranking officials. The origin of the word is assassiyun,Arabic
for fundamentalist, from the word assass, foundation. The suicide
squad of the Assassins, which was a militant arm of the Islamic
Isma’ili sect, was founded by Hassan Sabah and operated from the
Alamut cliff top fortress in the Elburz Mountains of Persia, now known
as northwestern Iran.

The Assassins, according to legend, were called hashishiyun, “smokers
of hashish,” by their enemies as the hashish was believed to be the
source of their visions—which commanded their violent acts. Marco Polo
even wrote of the sect and an impregnable fortress in the mountains of
Persia when detailing an account of his travels.

However, although the term assassination was not defined until the
Muslim sect materialized in the 11th century, their method or tool of
political murder had been in use since as early as 900 B.C. The
ancient Greeks and Romans did not have a word that corresponds with
our word assassination. “A killing was simply a means to an end; its
moral significance depended entirely on the nature of the person
killed” [italics original]. An individual who killed a public figure
was either a murderer or a tyrannicide, and the latter term was a
synonymous word for “liberator,” one who freed his country. According
to Cicero, some of the most celebrated figures in Greek and Roman
history were tyrant-killers. Brutus, who murdered Caesar, was born of
a long line of tyrant-killers. Undeniably, assassins make history.
The Concept of Terrorism

For the purpose of being thorough, it is worth examining the earliest
uses of the word terror. The word terrorist first appeared in modern
politics in the French Revolution, when revolutionists occasionally
applied the term to their actions. The revolutionists characterized
terrorism as “good” when implemented against individuals deemed to be
enemies of virtue and modernity, according to one source. Eventually,
upon the defeat of the Frenchman Robespierre and his military force in
1794 (known as the Reign of Terror), the term terrorist became a
pejorative. Thus, although the term initially was meant to conjure or
reflect what “good” a government could do to achieve and ensure the
acceptance of a revolution, within a century and a half, the term had
evolved into an evil principle of terror. Russian communist Vladimir
Lenin acted upon the belief that “the purpose of terror is to
terrorize,” and his orders during the Russian Civil War are reflective
of how terrorism can be utilized as an instrument of states.

As with assassinations, terror tactics have afflicted or been a part
of societies since the beginning of time. However, terrorist
campaigns, defined as “the prolonged, systematic use of terror to
secure a political objective, [have been] by comparison, conspicuously
rare, and the true terrorist enters history late.” As previously
referenced, the first example of terrorism can been seen in Medieval
Islam with the Ismaili sect. The instances of terrorism thereafter
multiplied, resulting in almost every country in the world having
experienced an act of terrorism. Ultimately, the development of modern
terrorism is too complex to be detailed here, but for the purposes of
this study, it is worth noting that terrorism evolved immensely in
both strategic and tactical principles in the twentieth
century—emerging as the most wielded tool for political murder.
Problem Statement

Without a doubt, assassinations and terrorism, whether successful or
unsuccessful, remain one of the most devastating acts of political
violence. The fact that the United States and other world-renowned
democracies have not been immune to these two types of violence,
assassinations and terrorism, illustrates the very severe nature of
the problem. The various assassination attempts that have been made
against leaders (primarily presidents) within the United States is
indicative to onlookers (or speaks) of a national security
issue—opening up questions of vulnerability or enticing a violent act.
Essentially, any violent attack against a president or his nation
disturbs the social and political stability of the targeted country.
Regardless, the impacts of these acts of violence ripple across the
world and are felt by other nations, whether directly or indirectly. A
critical analysis of the available body of information and related
discussion portrays assassinations (complete and attempts) and
terrorism as violent acts which not only have the inherent ability to
heighten national security, but also interfere with the foreign policy
of the United States. The fragile balance that exists between the
United States and other world nations, particularly the Middle East,
also exemplifies the latter.
Research Objectives

This thesis/study seeks to evaluate the impact of political
assassinations within the United States, as well as the impact of
terrorism in the United States. The specific objectives include the
following:

    To evaluate the consequences of political assassinations upon policy*
    To examine the consequences of terrorism or terror tactics upon policy
    To compare and contrast the impact of both violent acts,
assassination and terrorism, upon the United States

Hypothesis

In addition to impacting the timing of political action in the United
States, the assassinations of presidents and public figures such as
civil rights leader Martin Luther King and Black Muslim leader Malcolm
X has had the effect of catalyzing public concern and activating the
politicization of major policy issues. In essence, broadening support
and paving the way for major policy initiatives. Furthermore and most
significantly, this study posits that although both assassination and
terrorism have been of major consequence within the United States, the
brutal act of terrorism has had the greater impact than all U.S.
assassinations combined.
Terms and Functional Definitions

For operational terms and concepts, the following functional
definitions were employed in this study:

The victim is defined as the intended target of the assassination or
act of terrorism.

The method is defined as the weapon of assassination, or the tactic
employed in an act of terrorism.

The result is focused upon the intended victim.

The impact is focused upon the effect of an assassination or terrorism
upon policy

The venue is to identify the location of an assassination or terrorist attack.

The assailant is defined as the individual or individuals who planned,
carried out, or ordered an assassination or act of terror. For
example, an accomplice would also be identified as an assailant.

The motive represents the reasoning, when known, of why a victim was
targeted by either assassination or terrorism.

In this study, policy change is meant to reflect the different
judicial, executive and legislative decisions that were made after
each act of assassination or terrorism.

The following terms are used repeatedly throughout this study:

Assassination is defined slightly different according to various
sources, but is universally agreed upon as being the sudden,
premeditated murder of a political figure, due to the victim’s
perspective, prominence, or some combination of the two.Many sources
classify an attempted homicide as assassination, so for the purposes
of uniformity, this study shall follow the same classification.
However, the realm of attempts does not include written or verbal
attempts, stalking of a victim, or mass demonstrations. The latter
actions are more often, depending upon the situation, characterized as
foundational or threshold acts to assassinations rather than as acts
of assassination alone of themselves. Generally, assassination is
defined as the murder of a public figure by an assailant who aims
solely at the death of the victim. For further clarification, a
historical event can be described to showcase the employment of terms
within an assassination situation. Guiseppe Zangara, for example,
attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt in Miami, Florida, but
hit and killed Anton Cermak, the Mayor of Chicago instead. This
example illustrates how the latter event is classified as an
assassination attempt upon the President and the murder, not
assassination, of Anton Cermak—a bystander victim.

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing
project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full
dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched
to your needs.

In this study, terrorism is defined according to a definition that has
remained sound for over a quarter-century: “[T]he deliberate and
systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to inspire
fear for political ends.” The latter definition was proffered by
analysts in 1979 at The Jonathon Institute at Jerusalem (a conference
on international terrorism) and has been widely employed by scholars
and analysts since then. While other definitions exist, all agree that
terrorism is the use or threat of use of murder to infuse fear.
Contrary to assassinations, victims of terrorism are not always
specific targets.

For the purposes of effectively analyzing the true impact of
assassinations on policy in the United States, assassinations of only
those individuals in political public life were considered for this
study.
Literature Review

The violent act of assassination has been commonly presented as the
premeditated execution of an important political, religious, or social
figure. Contrary to regular homicides, assassinations strategically
target important individuals who maintain a prominent position of
power and influence in society. In addition, such acts are motivated
by clearly defined objectives. For instance, victims can be
assassinated for political, economical, or ideological reasons. In the
case of complete and attempted assassinations against American
presidents, another category of motivation exists: revenge. The
majority of presidential assassinations within the United States fall
within this category, with the act most often being the work of an
unstable, lone assailant and politically aimless. To the assailant,
their victim is seen as an obstacle in the realization of a personal
goal or established agenda. Although any individual can be the victim
of an assassination, the available body of literature that was
surveyed for this study depicts political leaders as a high-risk
group. Undeniably, the political aspect of assassination has often
been depicted as the most complex dimension of the violent act.
Politically motivated assassination, regardless of whether an attempt
or successful, is always considered an act to murder political
leaders. A crucial defining characteristic of these political
assassinations is their fundamental objective to advance political
interests.

The underlying assumption of every assassination is that political
figures are individuals upon whom huge responsibilities rest, such as
the ability to implement major domestic and foreign policy decisions.
For illustration, the presidencies of John Eisenhower, Richard M.
Nixon and John F. Kennedy were particularly viewed by the communist
world dictatorial regimes to be an obstruction in the advancement of
the United States’ political and socioeconomic interests. As seen
after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack upon the United States,
President George W. Bush declared a “war on terror” policy that
remains in effect today, although it has changed dramatically with the
introduction of current President Barack Hussein Obama and his
administration. But notably, the act of terrorism on September 11 led
to a policy in which suspected terrorists within and outside the
United States were to be tracked and dealt with accordingly.

Throughout history, the key targets of political assassination have
included Mahatma Gandi of India, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Patrice
Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Within the United States,
the first attempt to murder a political figure through assassination
occurred in 1835, when Richard Lawrence attempted to assassination
President Andrew Jackson. Since the nineteenth century, a handful of
U.S. presidents have been the victims of this type of political
violence. Included within this group are Presidents Abraham Lincoln,
James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. Their deaths
have continued to be a topic of unparalleled debate amongst political
analysts, scholars, and the general public, due to the concerns that
assassination poses to then security of political figures,
particularly a president, of the United States. Although as previously
mentioned, the majority of assassinations and assassination attempts
against U.S. presidents have been classified as random, politically
aimless acts committed by a lone individual, the general contention is
that they were well-planned and executed. The latter results in the
prevalence of conspiracy theories, which contend that within the realm
of U.S. assassinations, each act was meticulously planned by
individuals working together and with a defined motive in mind.
Instead of classifying one factor as the primary cause of
assassination, conspiracy theories posit that such violent acts stem
from numerous factors. For example, many conspiracy theorists believe
that Lee Oswald, the murderer of President John F. Kennedy, was
functioning as a component of a network of conspirators.
The Politics of Murder: Assassination in the United States

The act of assassination can be described as one of the oldest
techniques to perpetuate the politics of power. The phenomenon of
assassination in the United States has received increased attention in
the 20th century, with having only received notable research and
attention since the infamous trio of assassinations in the tumultuous
1960s. Nevertheless, the available body of information and research
reveals that assassination dates back to when civilization and the
concept of formal governments became an entrenched aspect of society.
The murder of kings such as Gedaliah and Julius Caesar can perhaps be
termed as the earliest assassinations to be recorded in history.

However, within the context of the United States, the act of
assassination became markedly more common in the 19th century. Such
acts of political violence were not expected to happen. The rationale
behind such a mentality was due to the United States being a
democratic state whose executive authority was responsible and
responsive to the will of the popularity majority. Thus, between 1789
and 1835, when the first assassination attempt occurred, no
significant protection details (on behalf of either federal or local
enforcements agencies) were dedicated to U.S. presidents. Perhaps this
rationalistic and optimistic mentality regarding human nature and
America’s system of government serve as an explanation for why the
politics of assassination have been largely under-explored until the
20th century.

For extended periods, prominent political leaders continued to
underestimate the threat that assassination posed to U.S. presidents.
William H. Seward, who served as Secretary of State under Presidents
Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, once remarked, “Assassination is
not an American practice or habit, and one so vicious and so desperate
cannot be engrafted into our political system. This conviction of mine
has grown so strong since the civil war began. Every day’s experience
confirms it.” Ironically, only three years after making the latter
statement, President Lincoln was assassinated in what appeared to be a
carefully constructed plot. And the optimistic Seward barely survived
an assassination attempt on himself during the murder of Lincoln. It
can be posited that Seward’s expressed certainty regarding
assassination was not unique unto himself, but rather demonstrative of
the general mentality of the U.S. populace as well. President James
McKinley solidified this rationalistic viewpoint when he declared,
“Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning;
and it is best not to worry about either.” Sadly, McKinley would later
regret his overconfidence in a morally sound and rational society—an
admirable trait, but one that enabled his death.
The Politics of Assassination CHANGE TITLE!

While the murder of any political leader of a society is going to have
repercussions upon said society, the assassination of a president
precipitates significant social and political transformation. In the
past, the assassination of a political head was viewed as an
appropriate method to eradicate oppressive tyrannical leadership.
However, in today’s societies, such acts of violence are hardly
condoned as an ideal strategy for catalyzing political change,
nonetheless positive political change. Conversely, assassination
attempts and assassinations have the impact of destabilizing social
and political structures, as the murder of a president or
highly-ranked political leader is regarded as particularly detrimental
to social and political harmony. Despite the reality of assassination
and widespread acknowledgement of its threat, negligible attention has
been given to the impact of such acts, particularly upon domestic and
foreign policy and the American way of life.

The available body of research postulates that assassinations and
assassination attempts upon U.S. presidents and political figures have
had considerable social and political consequences. Political analyst
Sheldon Appleton maintains that the “impact of assassinations on
America and the world is incalculable.” He also posits that the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy was arguably the most
outstanding act of violence in terms of (American) societal impact.
However, it must be noted that in regards to assassinations,
Appleton’s argument does hold water; but in regards to acts of
violence upon American soil, it can be argued that the terrorist
attack of September 11, 2001, resulted in the greatest impact upon
society. Other political analysts have concluded that presidential
assassinations activate a crisis in areas that are related to
authority. Furthermore, it is agreed upon that presidential
assassinations have the effect of triggering countermeasures,
particularly those that elicit changes in the arena of presidential
security. Such beliefs are not unfounded, as presidential
assassinations inevitably result in negative consequences due to the
extreme importance of the office of the president. Thus,
assassinations are likely to spark significant social and political
upheavals, even demonstrations, strikes and riots. However, such
reactions to an assassination can be described as minor in comparison
to other manifestations. One political analyst states: “Beyond these
relatively minor reflections of domestic malaise, the sudden and
violent death of a leader may also embolden dissatisfied groups to
push for greater political change, in extreme cases leading to coups,
revolution, and even civil war.”

Interestingly, factors that play a role in the influence of an
assassination can also serve to mitigate its social and political
impact. Political analysts Iqbal and Zorn report recent empirical data
that notes that “assassinations are less likely to occur in systems
that provide a regular, institutionalized means of leadership
turnover.” They also state that a nation’s political structure and its
method of executive turnover to be instrumental in the reaction of
said political system’s reaction to an assassination. Simply, nations
such as the United States, who have a “regular and (mostly)
nonviolent” executive turnover, will inevitable react differently to
assassinations than countries that do not. Ibqal and Zorn also
analogically postulate that assassinations create a “power vacuum”
within a political system—of which the suction strength will vary
dramatically from nation to nation depending upon the strength of the
targeted political order. It can be argued that within the context of
the United States, the strength

(or impact) of a power vacuum—implemented through assassination—would
be notably weaker than
Methodology

In completing the objectives of this study, the various aspects
underlying the topic of political assassination and terrorism,
particularly within the context of the United States, were explored.
More specifically, this study follows the various presidential
assassinations and acts of terrorism that have occurred since the 19th
century. Crucial information regarding the consequences of these
violent acts was collected and analyzed, with the goal of making
appropriate deductions.

The information that was required to properly address the objectives
of this study was primarily collected from online academic resources,
both secondary and primary, as well as various works by political
science or historical scholars. This method enabled the acquirement of
information that was relative to the impact and nature of political
assassinations and terrorism in the United States. The information
collected was directive in achieving the objectives of the study and
provided thorough analysis of the subject of inquiry. The principal
technique used in assembling information related to assassination was
content analysis, whereas the subject of terrorism received not only
the latter approach but was researched from primarily post-2000 dates.
A qualitative approach was utilized to determine the relevance of
gathered materials, with said approach taking into consideration the
strengths of the arguments presented, as well as their weight. To
guarantee the authenticity of arguments and their conclusions, only
accredited sources were considered or used. These included books,
peer-reviewed political science or history journals, and former
studies completed on the subject of either assassination or terrorism.
The hypothesis that was previously advanced was tested against the
articulations of researchers and scholars, with the objective of
achieving a consistent and valid conclusion for this study. A
qualitative method was implemented to interpret and analyze the data
gathered. This enabled individual analysis of the various instances of
political (primarily presidential) assassinations and acts of
terrorism in the history of the United States. While doing so, both
contrasting and concurring opinions and conclusions expressed by
analysts and scholars were considered.

The primary expectation in this study is that both political
assassinations (attempts or complete assassinations) and terrorism
have not only impacted the society and social conscience of American
society, but also empowered the adoption of sweeping policy changes.
The latter claim will be realized through examination of the response
and reaction of society and the political class after a violence act
of assassination or terrorism. To consider the impact of
assassinations, this study discusses the attacks against U.S.
presidents since 1865. The core factor of interest is the degree of
policy changes and transformations that took place after an act of
violence, beginning first with assassinations, and then acts of
terrorism. In this study, policy change is meant to reflect the
different judicial, executive and legislative decisions that were made
after each act of violence. The various events that took place after
each assassination or act of terrorism were reviewed, with special
attention given to how each event influenced U.S. domestic or foreign
policy. The underlying premise in the various instances of
assassination and terrorism is that each violent act had significant
political repercussions, but that of these two types of acts,
terrorism has achieved the greatest impact.

    Edelman, Murray, and Rita James Simon. “Presidential
Assassinations: Their Meaning and Impact of American Society.” Ethics,
35, no. 2 (1969), p. 199.
    Rapoport, David C. Assassination and Terrorism. Toronto: T.H. Best
Printing Company Limited, 1971, p. 3.
    Harmon, Christopher C. Terrorism Today. (2nd ed). New York:
Routledge, 2008, p. 5.
    Laucella, Linda. Assassinations: The Politics of Murder. (1st ed).
Los Angeles: Lowell House, 1998, p. xi.
    Ibid xi
    Rapoport, p. 7.
    Harmon, p. 4.
    Ibid 4
    Lacquer, Walter. The Age of Terrorism (Boston: Little Brown & Co.,
1987), p. 11, citing French dictionaries of the 1790s.
    Harmon, p. 4-5.
    Rapoport, p. 45.
    CITATION NEEDED
    Rapoport, p. 43.
    This study acknowledges that assassination attempts have been and
possess the ability to influence policy in the United States, both
foreign and domestic. Such instances are not completely disregarded
within this study, but for the purposes of the study, not all attempts
are examined. It is also acknowledged that monitoring national
security and suppressing public anxiety and fear play a role in the
assimilation and release of information regarding threats and attempts
(assassinations or other violent acts) against political leaders,
particularly the President. Thus, due to the latter and the lack of a
full, or complete, release of information regarding assassination
attempts, proper analysis is rendered impossible or faulty.
    Defining danger, p. 1 FINISH LATER
    Heaps, Willard A. Assassination: A Special Kind of Murder. New
York: Meredith Press, 1969, p. 5, citing the New International
Encyclopedia.
    Laucella, p. 128
    Harmon, p. 7.
    Ibid 32; Harmon posits that not only is terrorism a challenging
term to define, but one which possesses many gray areas. However, the
definition that was a result of the conference in Jerusalem “clarifies
much of what is white and much of what is black. One must not demand
more of a definition than what the nature of its subject allows,” he
concludes.
    Further extrapolation upon the classification of assassinations is
to follow in this study.
    Goldberg, Alfred. Conspiracy Interpretations of the Assassination
of President Kennedy: International and Domestic . Security Studies
Paper, Los Angeles: Ford Foundation, 1968, p. 2.
    Ibid p. 2
    Edelman, Murray, and Simon, p. 199.
    Crotty, William S. “Presidential Assassinations.” Society, 35, no
2 (1998), p. 99
    CITATION NEEDED
    Kingsbury, Robert. The Assassination of James A. Garfield (Library
of Political Assassinations). (1st ed). New York: Rosen Publishing
Group, 2001, p. 93
    Ibid 184
    Crotty, p. 18.
    U.S. Department of State. The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and
the Attempted Assassination of William H. Seward and Frederick W.
Seward V2 1867). New York: Kessinger Publishing, Llc, 2008, p. 102
    Kingsbury, p. 5
    Crotty, p. 109
    Appleton, Sheldon. “The Polls-Trends: Assassinations.” Public
Opinion Quarterly 64, no. 2 (2000), p. 495
    Appleton’s argument does take acts of terrorism into account, but
considering the date of his publication, 2000, the terrorist attacks
of 9/11 are obviously not considered. It is not illogical to thus
conclude that his argument has been rendered faulty, or outdated, due
to the series of events that have occurred since 2000—but his points
regarding assassination remain valid.
    Edelman and Simon, p. 199
    Iqbal, p. 387
    Ibid, p. 387
    Ibid, p. 388
    Due to the overwhelming prevalence of information regarding
terrorism, only the most current and balanced works and online
journals were utilized in this study. Furthermore, due to the moral
sensitivity of the subject of terrorism and its often-unavoidable
religious connotations, only language that spoke to the impact or
consequences of terrorism was studied.