OPINION: The positives of terrorism 

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author.

The most common understanding of terrorism is that it has a “negative effect”. While this way of thinking of terrorism is not incorrect, it is also not entirely accurate. Though, it is understandable that people would view terrorism through such monocular lens; however, terrorism could in fact be understood as having both a “negative” and “positive” effect. Although many analyses and many people (within and beyond the academic world) are reluctant to frame anything positive in relation to terrorism, for reasons that are understandable, but which arguably get in the way of a holistic understanding of terrorism, it is important for scholars/experts and policy makers alike to avoid the mistake of omitting a critical component to more fuller understanding of terrorism activism. Perhaps, the avoidance to frame terrorism-related activities as “positive” could also be due to the fact that the cost far outweighs typically the benefits. 

As one distinguished scholar and expert on international terrorism Louise Richardson candidly observed during our interview: “Yes, I think there are some benefits to joining a terrorist group. In so far as you become a member of a close-knit community. Depending on the environment, it may increase your social status within the community. And you may get the power that goes along with wielding a weapon, but there are also enormous costs. The likelihood is that you are going to die; the likelihood is that you are going to be separated from your family, and you are going to be – if not killed – imprisoned. So, yes there are some benefits but there are enormous costs as well. And most rational analysis will suggest that the cost will greatly out-weigh the gain”. 

Hence, it is why I created the Stakeholders of Terrorism concept using the qualitative research methodology. To aid in not merely offer a holistic approach, or multifaceted and multidimensional understanding of terrorism (as the prevailing literature is replete with such approach to understanding terrorism), but to provide more tools to enhance counterterrorism policies to efficaciously combat terrorism. So, what is the Stakeholders of Terrorism concept arguing? First, we must clarify what it is not arguing. TheStakeholders of Terrorism concept is not arguing or trying to categorise terrorism as being either “good” or “bad”. Quite the opposite. The concept, however, seeks to understand terrorism as having an inherent duality by borrowing from and adding to the existing literature. There are indeed a multiplicity of intangible and tangible negatives and positives simultaneouslypresent in most situations concerning terrorism. More importantly, the Stakeholders of Terrorism concept is not arguing that the inherent duality (negatives and the positives) is evidence of a set of clear-cut or well-defined boundaries that do not overlap in most situation concerning terrorism. Although they are conceptually distinct, they are not completely mutually exclusive or exhaustive clauses.

Thus, the “stakeholders of terrorism” is defined as non-state actors who in one way or another have an interest in terrorism (by either coverage of, or active participation in it) and can either directly or indirectly affect or be affected negatively or positively by terrorism or the outcomes of terroristic violence.To illustrate the application of this definition, let us look at an individual who may have an interest in terrorism whether to use it as a means to redress personal grievances, garner attention/notoriety, revenge or even financial rewards, among other things. For example, George Metesky (nicknamed the “Mad Bomber”) had engaged in terroristic violence by placing some 30 bombs across New York City in various public places in protest against a local electric utility company and to redress personal grievances he had with the state of New York “for not giving him an appropriate pension after he was injured while working”. The stakeholder’s definition allows for flexibility to include individuals who do not engage in acts of terrorism but may be affected by it “negatively” or “positively” – like, for instance, former U.S. President George W. Bush within the context of the War on Terror. This is because Bush as the “sovereign” had the ability to “affect” or be “affected” negatively or positively by the terroristic episodic event of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For example, theterrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, have been considered to be “both domestic and international in nature…resulted in the most powerful patriotic “rally-around-the-flag” reaction since Pearl Harbour and America’s involvement in World War II, and Bush’s public approval even saw a dramatic increasefrom 51% prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack to an extraordinary 90% (a 35% increase) in less than 2 weeks after the attack, hitting “record high levels since presidential approval ratings were first measured in the 1930s”. Thus, in this case, President Bush was positively affected by the 9/11 attacks in terms of his “public approval” ratings, which would be categorised as an indirect intangible positive through the Stakeholders of Terrorism concept.

In fact, in deploying the Stakeholders of Terrorism concept to better understand why some Caribbean nationals migrated to join ISIS, it revealed how themes such as “a sense of belonging” and “offered money to fight” can be equally deemed as “negatives” that are considered as main drivers for why some individuals decided to join ISIS and simultaneouslybe categorised as “positives” in terms of garnering some personal or inherent psychological reward from feeling like one belongs to something or being financially rewarded for one’s engagement in terrorism-related activism. Maybe Caribbean heads may want to consider deploying or use the Stakeholders of Terrorism concept to guide counterterrorism policies to ensure that we not only properly diagnose the problem but be able to effectively address it. 

Contributor: Emanuel Quashie is a Lecturer for International Relations at the University of the West Indies, Mona campus. He is the author of Stakeholders of Terrorism and the Caribbean: A Short Case Study (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023), and The War on Terror and the Caribbean: Schmittian Perspectives (Routledge, 2025)