Terrorism Effective? The Term \"Terrorism\"

¶ … Terrorism Effective?

The term "terrorism" is basically politically and fervently charged which compounds the struggle of providing a precise description of terrorism. Some examination studies by intellectuals have shown the fact that there are over 100 various terms of terrorism. A less diplomatically and emotionally charged denotation of terrorism is a better well-defined word that is often utilized for referring to fear. The word "fear" derives from a Latin word with a connotation that means "to be frightened." (American Heritage Online Dictionary, 2010) Many people share the definition of terrorism in that it means a violent activity which is envisioned to generate fear, to endorse an ideological/political objective, and purposely aim at civilians and non- civilian targets (American Heritage Online Dictionary, 2010). With that said, terrorism appears to be more effective when used against a democracy vs. A more repressive regime for many reasons.

Terrorism is more effective against a democracy because it poses distinctive challenge to the liberal democratic state. The transnational nature of terrorism requires collaboration among and between states to speak to this common threat. Comparative studies disclose that societies that are of liberal states must offer consensus for those anti and counter terrorist guidelines which are adopted by the state (Dantzker, 2010). If democracies that are liberal began to take police state-like action in reply to terrorism, then questionably the terrorists have accomplished what they set out to do. Terrorism goal is to make sure that they affect every root of democracy. However, their main goal is to get the citizens to even question that fact, Is democracy worth it? Is this form of government really bringing the protection that we need? Terrorist use this strategy to attack western democracy because it plants seeds in the back of the minds of every citizen. It is very effective because it brings panic to a group of people that have put all of their trust in a form of government that is popular all over the globe (Dantzker, 2010). The terrorist tactic is effective because it gets the people in debate on whether or not a democratic nation is even worth it. In short, terrorists target state lawfulness, and political culture is at the root of this investigation because it reflects a society's legality for its policies and its leaders. It is also the element that is missing of a lot of unrestricted social equalities.

It can be noted that one effect that terrorism has had on democracy is the impact of 9/11. Everyone knows that the terrorist attacks that went down on September 11, 2001 ("9/11"), really brought change to many things, as well as the consideration of scholars (Leahy, 2005). In the wake of those proceedings, investigation on how terrorism disturbs mass publics, and public view in specific, propelled from a modest originality to an industry that was booming. People getting an understanding of the roots and significances of terrorism, on democracy really turned out to be a matter of increased scholarly interest and heightened public substance. Social scientists that had been furnished with surveys and other gears of their trade replied quickly, and the first wave of published research reports seemed little more than a year after 9/11. It was clear with these reports that terrorism had indeed affected democracy in more ways than one. The biggest impact that it had was that it brought about fear.

The ensuing development in awareness by those that support democracy has been exponential and continues quickly, but then again, for all that the gains have been great, this knowledge has arrived mostly in bits and pieces. In Democracy at Risk, Elizabeth Zechmeister and Jennifer Merolla depart from this tendency by participating in a more unrelenting treatment and wider attention that talks about how terrorism brought fear to democracy (Dantzker, 2010). The final product of course seems to be is a fresh, bold, rigorous account of how the danger of international terrorism has transformed democratic citizens. One of these ways that it has done that is by frightening them into thinking that democracy is not capable of protecting them.

Another way that terrorism has more of an effect on democracy is because it influences the security of the homeland. Terrorism has made it where most countries ruled by democracy are now running a tight ship when it comes to homeland security (Leahy, 2005). As mentioned earlier it has dropped seeds in the back of people's minds as to whether or no democracy is able to protect its people. Not only has doubts been put in place regarding national homeland security but also the cost of keeping it more secure has sky rocketed the piece. Defense and security spending has really hit the roof by a massive amount in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Glen Hodgson, the Deputy Chief Economist for the EDC (Export Development Candada) mentions how the costs were in 2004:

The U.S. By itself has been spending somewhere around U.S. $500 billion every twelve months -- which is somewhere around 20% of the U.S. federal budget -- on departments that are directly betrothed in fighting or stopping terrorism, most particularly Defense and Homeland Security. The Defense budget has gone up by one-third, or over $100 billion, from 2001 to 2003 in reply to the intensified sense of the danger of terrorism -- an increase which is equal to 0.9 per cent of United States GDP. Expenses on defense and security are vital for any country, but of course they also come with a prospect cost; those capitals are not obtainable for other purposes, from spending on health and education to discounts in taxes. A higher risk of terrorism, and the need to battle it, merely increases that prospect cost. (Leahy, 2005)

Also it will have an impact on democracy because it will affect the economy. Economists also evaluate terrorism's impression on the global supply chains. (a supply chain is the arrangement of phases that dealers of goods take to get merchandises from one place to another.) These phases can become tremendously expensive in expressions of time and money when additional layers of safety at ports and land restrictions are added to the procedure. As stated by the OECD, higher transportation prices could have a particularly damaging effect on developing markets that have promoted from a reduction in costs in the last decade and as a result on countries' aptitude to combat deficiency.

It does not really appear to be that much farfetched to envision that in some instances, barriers that are meant to defend populations from terrorism would really bring much more strength to the risk: poor nations that might have to slow exports on account of the cost of security events are at a greater risk, on account of the effects of poverty, of governmental radicalization and destabilization and that is among their populations (Leahy, 2005).