Hybrid Threats: Irregular Warfare in the 21st Century
Irregular warfare is a dynamic conflict where state and non-state actors engage in a violent struggle to gain legitimacy and exert influence over pertinent populations. It strays from the traditional norms of warfare and employs diverse tactics such as insurgency, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare. Understanding irregular warfare is crucial in today's world, as it presents an enduring and effective means of achieving political goals. It challenges conventional warfighting notions by blurring the lines between war and peace and employing diverse methods.
Irregular warfare can disrupt businesses by disrupting supply chains, damaging infrastructure, and harming consumer confidence. NGOs have been pivotal in providing humanitarian aid to conflict-affected communities, but they too have faced obstacles. Irregular warfare can prolong and complicate conflicts by creating multiple, shifting factions, alliances, and grievances, challenge conventional military superiority and can impact diplomatic relations by creating tensions and mistrust between actors.
Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency
Insurgency
An insurgency is a violent, armed rebellion by small, lightly armed groups practising guerrilla warfare against a larger authority, primarily from rural base areas. Insurgencies have political objectives and use propaganda or intimidation to gain population support. They are often motivated by ethnic, religious, or ideological causes, and avoid direct confrontation by relying on hit-and-run tactics, ambushes, sabotage, and terrorism.
The Taliban Insurgency
Examining significant conflicts of the 21st century across the globe reveals an array of insurgencies that have deeply impacted various regions. The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan emerged as a critical conflict in the early 21st century. Removed from power by a US-led invasion in 2001, the Taliban commenced an insurgency against the newly established Afghan government and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
The insurgency of the Taliban in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021 had significant implications for the country's population, supply chains, companies, and NGOs. The population faced numerous hardships during this period, including increased violence, displacement, and a general climate of fear. According to data from the UNHCR, the insurgency led to the internal displacement of approximately 2.9 million people by the end of 2019. Education and public health services were also severely impacted, with many schools and healthcare facilities being shut down or restricted in areas under Taliban control.
Supply chains in Afghanistan were severely disrupted as well. Roadside bombings and attacks on convoys made the transportation of goods hazardous, leading to shortages and increased prices of essential commodities. Many rural areas were particularly affected, as their economies are largely dependent on agriculture and livestock, and they were often cut off from the larger marketplaces due to the conflict. The World Bank reported a marked slowdown in economic activity in areas affected by the insurgency, during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to food and fuel shortages, increased prices, and widespread unemployment.
Moreover, the conflict resulted in an increasingly challenging environment for businesses and NGOs operating in the country. The Afghan Chamber of Commerce and Industry noted a significant drop in business investment, particularly from foreign sources, due to security concerns. NGOs faced a particularly complex challenge, as they had to navigate the intricate tribal and political dynamics of the region while also dealing with threats and attacks from insurgent forces. For example, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was forced to close a trauma centre in Kunduz in 2015 after it was bombed, leading to the loss of 42 lives.
Boko Haram
Boko Haram's insurgency has caused significant disruption and upheaval in Nigeria, primarily in the northeastern regions of the country. The group's activities have resulted in the displacement of over two million people, causing a severe humanitarian crisis. Large numbers of people have been forced to flee their homes, leading to a surge in internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees. This massive population displacement has strained resources and infrastructure and increased the demand for humanitarian aid.
In terms of supply chains, the insurgency has led to disruptions and insecurity along key transport and trade routes, especially those connecting Nigeria to its neighbours in the Lake Chad region. Frequent attacks have made it challenging to transport goods and services safely across the country, which has had a knock-on effect on the availability and prices of goods in affected areas.
Companies operating in regions affected by the insurgency have faced significant challenges, including physical damage to assets, disruption of operations, and risks to personnel safety. Some companies have had to shut down operations or move to safer regions, while others, mainly multinational firms with greater resources, are operating with increased risk assessment and mitigation. This has not only affected the companies themselves but also their employees and local communities who rely on these businesses for employment and economic stability.
Counter-Insurgency
Counter-insurgency refers to the actions or programs taken by a group, army, or government to combat insurgencies. Its objectives include restoring peace and minimising civilian deaths, using a combination of conventional military operations, propaganda, and psychological operations. Counter-insurgency involves military and public authorities, requiring a comprehensive and coordinated approach that addresses the root causes of the insurgency, isolates the insurgents from the population, and strengthens the legitimacy of the government.
The U.S. and the Coalition Counter-Insurgency in Iraq (2003–2011)
After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, an insurgency emerged composed of different factions, including former regime elements, Islamists, and ethnic groups. The U.S. and its allies implemented a counter-insurgency strategy to combat it, which included combat operations, training of Iraqi forces, and efforts to win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi population. The "Surge" of additional American troops in 2007, a controversial action, is often credited with reducing the level of violence, even though it exacted a heavy toll.
The United States and their Allies' counter-insurgency operations in Iraq had significant effects on the population, supply chains, companies, and NGOs. One of the most immediate effects was the direct impact on the civilian population. Data from the Iraq Body Count project, a human rights project which maintained a database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion, showed an estimated 185,000-208,000 civilian deaths from violence from 2003 to 2011, inflicted both by US-led coalition forces and Iraqi insurgents.
The implementation of counter-insurgency strategies often led to disruption in supply chains. In a bid to cut off supplies to insurgents, stringent checkpoints and road closures were enforced, leading to delays and sometimes complete standstills in the transportation of goods. For example, in 2007, a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) highlighted that significant amounts of construction materials intended for infrastructure projects were delayed or lost due to these restrictions.
NGOs were also deeply impacted. The NGO Coordination Committee for Iraq (NCCI) noted that many NGOs faced escalating security threats, with kidnappings and attacks on aid workers becoming increasingly common. Additionally, with the country's infrastructure crumbling and financial systems unstable, NGOs struggled to get much-needed aid to the people who needed it the most. For instance, in 2010, only 30% of Iraq’s humanitarian aid was met, as charities and NGOs simply could not get the aid into the regions it was needed.
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
While conflict between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian Government began in the mid-20th century, the 21st century saw significant counter-insurgency efforts by the government, with considerable U.S. support under Plan Colombia. The counter-insurgency operations eventually culminated in a peace agreement in 2016, which led to the demobilisation of FARC as a militant group, although dissident factions remain active.
For the population, the impacts of the counter-insurgency have been multifaceted. The conflict has led to large-scale displacement, with UNHCR data estimating that 6.8 million people had been internally displaced by the conflict by the end of 2022. The violence has also had a significant impact on human rights, with the army engaging in extrajudicial killings to boost statistics and armed groups forcibly recruiting children and adolescents. Public health has also been affected; in conflict zones, access to healthcare became limited as a result of the violence, hampering the health of the population.
Companies operating in Colombia also faced challenges due to the conflict. Particularly in the mining and energy sectors, infrastructure sabotage became a common form of attack by the FARC. This resulted in significant production losses and delays, resulting in financial losses for these sectors. For instance, in 2014, FARC violence cost Columbia’s oil sector roughly $400 million by July of that year.
Humanitarian workers have often been targeted by both FARC and government forces, either through intimidation tactics or by violent methods, limiting their access and ability to provide aid. This significantly hampered their operations. In 2022 alone, medical missions in Colombia were attacked 426 times.
Mitigation Strategies
Addressing the myriad obstacles in counter-insurgency efforts necessitates a multifaceted approach. One must first gain a deep understanding of the root causes and motivations driving both the insurgents and the general population. It is essential to pinpoint and sever the connection between insurgents and their sources of support, though this is notoriously difficult to do, while simultaneously managing the complexities of dealing with various insurgent groups.
A balanced application of force and restraint is crucial, as well as efficient coordination among the different actors involved in the counter-insurgency process. Adapting to ever-evolving dynamics and challenges is equally important.
To surmount these hurdles, strategies should focus on tackling the political, economic, social, and cultural greed and grievances that lie at the root of insurgency. Safeguarding the population from insurgent violence and crippling insurgent capabilities via intelligence-led operations is also vital. Strengthening the legitimacy and capacity of the host-nation government and security forces plays a key role in counter-insurgency.
Moreover, strategic communication and information operations are needed to combat insurgent propaganda. Finally, engaging in negotiations with moderate or cooperative insurgent factions may pave the way for a political resolution or enduring peace.
Guerrilla Warfare
Guerrilla warfare employs strategies such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to combat larger and less-mobile traditional military forces. Key characteristics include reliance on local population support or political cause for sustaining fighters and providing intelligence, recruits, safe havens, and resources. Guerrilla warfare exploits terrain and surprise to harass and demoralise enemy forces, avoiding direct confrontation and pitched battles unless conditions are favourable. This type of warfare aims to inflict attrition on the enemy through small-scale actions, gradually eroding morale, supplies, and the will to fight, while adapting to changing circumstances and utilising various tactics and weapons to achieve objectives.
The Case of Myanmar
Myanmar has been in a state of turmoil since the military coup that occurred in February 2021. Following the coup, various resistance groups emerged, some of which formed the People's Defense Forces (PDFs). These groups began employing guerrilla warfare strategies in an attempt to push back against the military junta's control.
The conflict grew more severe when armed rebels declared war on the junta, which escalated the country's situation towards comprehensive urban warfare. This escalation has led to a cycle of human rights violations and abuses, trapping the people of Myanmar in a situation of poverty and displacement, according to the then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.
Throughout 2021, the military sought to consolidate its authority by ruthlessly killing and imprisoning its opponents. This intensified conflict, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, caused a significant humanitarian crisis with needs escalating dramatically.
As the conflict further escalated in early 2022, the country saw a heavy military presence, increased military checkpoints, and search and arrest operations. Noeleen Heyzer, the UN Special Envoy on Myanmar, mentioned that the political crisis had opened new frontlines that had long been at peace, further deepening and expanding the challenges in the country.
In response to the escalating situation, brutal assassinations became a common strategy by 2022, for both sides. One reported incident involved a rebel gunman who assassinated a government official by shooting him four times in the head. As a response, the Myanmar military took revenge on the population. For instance, the military was involved in one situation where they killed 17 people in two separate villages. The military has also launched hundreds of air strikes on opposition forces, resulting in the death of more than 300 civilians. Groups allied to the military have also been involved in extrajudicial killings, without facing consequences.
Guerrilla warfare's impact on businesses and economic development can vary depending on the context and nature of the conflict. One possible effect is the disruption of supply chains and markets, which can interrupt the flow of goods, services, and resources, creating shortages, delays, and increased costs. Another potential impact is damage to infrastructure and property, such as roads, bridges, factories, and shops. This can reduce productivity and profitability while increasing repair and maintenance costs.
Countering guerrilla warfare presents various challenges, such as the difficulty in identifying and locating guerrillas who blend in with civilians and use the terrain to their advantage. The asymmetry of the conflict, political and psychological aspects, and logistical and operational constraints faced by conventional forces add to the complexity.
To counter guerrilla warfare, developing a clear and realistic strategy, and employing flexible and adaptive tactics suited to the local context, while coordinating with other actors like local authorities, civil society, and international organisations can be effective. Protecting and engaging with the population by providing security, services, development, and justice, while disrupting guerrilla networks and sources of support, is crucial for a successful campaign.
Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism
Terrorism
Terrorism can be understood as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, particularly against civilians, to pursue political aims. Definitions may vary across countries and organisations, but some common characteristics of terrorism include the use of violence or the threat of violence, targeting non-combatant subjects, and being politically motivated. Terrorist acts are typically planned and systematic, with groups like Al Qaeda, ISIL, and National Action employing different ideologies, motivations, and methods. By targeting civilians, public places, and symbolic locations, terrorism aims to create widespread fear and coerce governments and citizens to change their policies in favour of the terrorists' agenda.
The September 11 attacks in 2001, orchestrated by Al Qaeda, involved the hijacking of four planes, with two crashing into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, causing their collapse, another hitting the Pentagon, and the fourth being diverted and crashing in Pennsylvania. These attacks resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people and prompted a global war on terror. Similarly, the London bombings in 2005 targeted the city's public transportation system, leaving 52 dead and around 700 injured, serving as a reminder of the enduring threat of terrorism in urban areas. Additionally, the terrorist attack on Garissa University in Kenya in 2015 revealed the targeted nature of extremist violence, resulting in the deaths of 148 individuals and highlighting that even places of education can be vulnerable to such acts.
Counter-Terrorism
Counter-terrorism encompasses political and military activities aimed at preventing or thwarting terrorism. The UK's counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) follows a strategic framework with four work strands: prevent, pursue, protect, and prepare. Counter-terrorism efforts rely on international legal cooperation and adherence to human rights standards, requiring collaboration and coordination between countries and organisations while respecting the rule of law and the rights of all people, including those suspected or accused of terrorism.
Operation Barkhane
Operation Barkhane initiated by France in August 2014, is a counter-insurgency operation in Africa's Sahel region aimed at combating extremist groups and replacing the earlier Operation Serval in Mali, within a broader international effort to stabilise the region. Its objective was to combat Islamist militants and provide support to local forces in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mauritania.
Operation Barkhane had a mixed impact on the Sahel region. It led to several high-profile successes such as the elimination of top extremist leaders, including Abdelmalek Droukdel, the head of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), in June 2020, and Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi, the leader of the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), in March 2021. Through this operation, France also provided training and support to local military forces, significantly contributing to the G5 Sahel Joint Force, which, however, struggled due to insufficient funding and resources. Despite these successes, in 2020, the United Nations reported a sharp increase in violence in the tri-border region between Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, with the death toll doubling compared to the same period in 2019. Extremist groups proved to be resilient and adaptable, often regrouping after suffering setbacks. Meanwhile, inter-communal violence and conflicts over resources complicated the situation further, pointing to the fact that the issues at stake extend beyond what a military operation can address.
In some areas, the presence of foreign troops sparked large protests, as seen multiple times in Bamako, the capital of Mali, where thousands demanded the withdrawal of French forces. Reports of civilian casualties, whether in the crossfire or due to mistakes, further fueled anti-French sentiments. Moreover, the dependence on foreign military aid has been a source of concern for some, worrying that it undermines national sovereignty. Ultimately, French forces withdrew from Mali and the operation came to a close following coups in 2020 and 2021 in the country.
Counter-terrorism measures can affect businesses in several ways, including escalating security expenses, regulatory compliance, human rights issues, and opportunities for collaboration. Increased investment in security measures may impact profitability and competitiveness, while adhering to counter-terrorism regulations can introduce additional administrative burdens and market constraints. Ethical dilemmas or human rights risks may arise for businesses operating in areas where counter-terrorism measures are enforced.
Addressing terrorism involves overcoming numerous challenges and executing strategies such as defining and understanding terrorism, preventing and countering violent extremism, fortifying the legal framework and criminal justice system, boosting security and resilience, and encouraging dialogue and cooperation. Counter-terrorism endeavours should balance security and human rights concerns, target the underlying causes and drivers of terrorism, enhance international collaboration and coordination, and adapt to the evolving nature and tactics of terrorism. Employing human rights-based, preventive, multilateral, and adaptive approaches can lead to more effective and sustainable counter-terrorism outcomes.
Conclusion
This article delves into the intricate realm of irregular warfare, examining insurgency and counter-insurgency, guerrilla warfare, as well as terrorism and counter-terrorism. Key takeaways emphasise the significance of grasping the nature and dynamics of these unconventional warfare forms and their potential consequences on businesses and economies, including supply chain disruptions, infrastructure damages, and human capital losses.
Addressing these threats is crucial, as they can not only compromise business operations but also pose risks to global security and stability. Countering these challenges demands continuous innovation and adaptability, with governments, businesses, and civil society joining forces to devise and execute effective strategies.
Persistent innovation and collaboration are essential, given that hybrid threats are perpetually evolving and necessitate multi-faceted approaches that tackle the root causes and drivers of conflict while upholding the rule of law and human rights. This calls for the cultivation of a comprehensive and coordinated response that encompasses military, political, economic, and psychological measures, in addition to international cooperation and dialogue.
Amid these challenges, businesses must stay alert and proactive, adjusting to shifting circumstances and investing in risk management and resilience measures. This involves forging robust partnerships with governments, civil society, and other stakeholders to collaboratively mitigate the effects of irregular warfare and terrorism and foster peace and stability in affected regions.
Ultimately, addressing these threats is a shared responsibility among all members of society, as collective action is crucial to building a safer and more secure global community. Businesses play a vital role in this endeavour by endorsing responsible and ethical practices, investing in resilience, and supporting initiatives that address the underlying causes of conflict and terrorism.
Congressional Chaos: Will Republican Discord Lead to Productive Governance or Fuel Dangerous Division?
In January 2023, the US House of Representatives attempted to elect a new speaker of the house. The Speaker is important, as the House cannot function without one by law - meaning legislation cannot pass, and budgets unset, leading to a halt on normal governing functions. Historically, the majority party simply elects their party leader to preside over the House. However, this time around, the Republicans have found it difficult to elect Kevin McCarthy as a 20-member faction, ideologically opposed to the majority of the Party, prohibited the election of a Speaker for five days, until their demands on policy, committee seats and rules for the House of Representatives were met.
The lack of a House Speaker for any period is quite unusual. It has only happened twice since the civil war. Most importantly, Congress can only govern with a Speaker. As the rules stand, the House of Representatives cannot pass laws, or respond to emergencies, lawmakers cannot view classified or sensitive materials, or any other government action it needs to in order to oversee other Federal agencies and branches of government until a speaker is elected. The legislative branch is therefore paralysed during that time.
Aside from the difficulty to elect a new Speaker, the event points to further legislative chaos emanating not just from a divided Congress, but a divided Republican Party. What the Speakership election has shown is that a small group of Republicans, known as the Freedom Caucus and ideologically opposed to many in their own party, are willing to stall governing in order to force through their agenda.
Further Congressional Chaos
The rebellion against Kevin McCarthy’s speakership bid was rooted primarily in an ideological drive of the most conservative Republicans to drastically limit the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government, taking up the banner of the Tea Party.
Many dissidents are focused on balancing the federal budget, coming to blows with senior Republicans and potentially setting up a showdown over the US debt ceiling. The Freedom caucus seeks radical changes such as slashing the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) budget and replacing federal income taxes with ones on consumption. The faction further demands seats on top committees, the cessation of Republican funding primary challengers against Freedom Caucus members, and even limiting US aid to Ukraine.
In order to achieve all of this, the Freedom Caucus has used their small numbers, and the Party’s overall slim majority, to hold the speakership hostage if concessions were not made. For instance, the threshold to call a vote of no confidence in a sitting Speaker has been lowered, meaning that if McCarthy tries to keep the Freedom Caucus at bay, they could now more easily trigger a vote of no confidence and remove him. The Freedom Caucus members have also demanded changes in the reading of bills - they can no longer be rushed to a vote, but a 72 hours notice must be given to give members of the House time to read the legislation.
The Freedom Caucus’ demands place the country in an unstable position. As demonstrated, the group does not hesitate to hold up the legislative process if their demands are not met. As a result, the changes to Congress could potentially slow down the legislative process, hampering any ability to respond quickly to crises. The actions of the Republican faction threatens to make an already divided government, as the House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled by competing parties, even more divisive and unresponsive to the country’s issues.
What it means for Congress
With the breakdown of Republican Party discipline, some are worried about what it will mean for Congress's ability to govern over the next two years. “This concerns me that we might end up in some deals that might not pass and then possible shutdowns,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Texas and a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Cuellar’s statement illustrates how Democrats and some Republicans are worried that the conflict over the speakership is a sign of the majority’s inability to govern and ultimately its instability.
McCarthy’s difficulty to be elected shows how fragile the Republican Party and by extension the US government are. Working with a Democratic-controlled Senate and Presidency was always going to pose a challenge for House Republicans. But the power of the Freedom Caucus means they can hold up key policy decisions and hinder important government functions - passing budgets, raising the debt ceiling, and scrutinising the work of governing branches and departments - in addition to preventing compromise with Democrats.
A divided Republican Party will only enhance the division present in American Government. Following the midterm election in the Autumn of 2022, Congress found itself divided, with Democrats holding the Senate and the House held by the Republicans. The division means that making laws, overseeing the other governing branches and enacting spending bills will be increasingly difficult. In the void left by government inaction, partisan divisions are likely to be heightened, as each side blames the other for the inability to get anything done. Tensions are likely to heat up around critical debates, such as the one around whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.
One of the key issues facing Congress, and maybe the most important decision it will make in the next 12 months, is whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount of debt the Federal Government can accrue. Once the ceiling is hit, the government is no longer allowed to issue any more debt. In the short term, extraordinary measures may be taken to meet financial commitments, but if negotiations to raise the ceiling stall, the long-term result may be a default on government debt.
If the US Federal Government defaults or comes close to a default, the result could be economic chaos. Default would mean interest rates rise, investors stop or scale back investments in Treasury securities, and interest rates would rise on car loans, credit cards and mortgages. Even the threat of hitting the ceiling could raise borrowing costs, as The Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggests. The result of a debt limit impasse was estimated by Moody’s Analytics in 2021. The US economy could see a 4% decline in GDP, the loss of 6 million jobs, with unemployment rising to 9% and a $15 trillion loss in household wealth. Ultimately, the result would be a recession on par or worse than the Great Recession in 2008.
If Congressional inactivity leads to economic chaos the results can lead to increases in people turning to extremist movements and ultimately violence to rectify the stressful living situations they find themselves in. As we have seen in the decade after the Great Recession, or the post-Great Depression, extremist parties and factions gained adherents as they claimed they were the only solutions to the issues plaguing their societies. But, with today’s Congress, economic downturns are not the only driver pushing people towards extremism and violence.
Risks of violence
Intra-Party conflict, and Congressional deadlock, leading to economic recession can increase the chances of violence as people turn to extremist groups as outlets. But economic conditions are not the only source of people’s frustration and cause of their turn towards extremism and violence. In the current climate, unresponsive governing institutions, including the established political parties, are used as points in party rhetoric to stoke polarisation and existential fears.
The Senate and House are controlled by opposing parties who refuse to work together, and the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is internally divided. All of the division leads to a legislative branch that is unable to enact legislation that may positively shape people’s lives and respond to crises. Historically, government inaction on key issues has led to a response by citizens who believe they have no other choice: The French Revolution is a famous example, as is the Arab Spring.
Historically, The US has experienced periods where divided governments have led to inaction over policy issues and resulted in violence. The most prominent example is the division over slavery in the run-up to the Civil war, in which neither side could compromise on the issue, making violent conflict inevitable. During the Gilded Age (1877-1896) Congress found itself split between Democrats and Republicans for 13 years. Division in Congress also came at a time when a bargain was struck to end reconstruction in the southern states, allowing those states to roll back rights for former slaves without any resulting Federal Government reaction. Without a federal presence, violence reigned as whites attempted to take the rights of former slaves away from them. However, continued division in Congress meant a concerted effort to protect Black Americans and their rights were impossible and led to Jim Crow laws being adopted across the South. A divided Congress was also at the centre of attention in 1932, when they were slow to provide bonuses to WWI veterans during the Depression. As a result, the veterans and their families protested in Washington, with the government calling in the military to deal with the unrest. The violence resulted in the deaths of several protesters, including two infants, and injured hundreds of others.
When the government becomes unable to respond to issues impacting people’s everyday lives, party rhetoric aims to blame the other side, framing them as a threat to their perceived way of life. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke about a “national divorce” between red and blue states, stemming from a belief that Democratic politics pose a threat to Republicans. The result is that people cluster into ideological groups, fueled by their side’s messages demonising their political opponents. The result is a deeply polarised political landscape.
Polarisation is further amplified by a sense that if the other side wins the next election, “our way of life will be threatened”. If people buy into the thought that they are threatened, they may lash out in a violent way. The most well-known example of political polarisation leading to violence is the January 6 insurrection. On January 6, followers of Donald Trump perceived the victories of Joe Biden and the Democrats in the House and Senate as an existential threat. Supporters believed that the election had been stolen from them by establishment political figures that had conspired to get rid of Donald Trump. Some of his supporters saw Trump as a saviour that would protect America from immoral people at the top of society. The result was a group of Trump’s supporters attempting to overturn the election with violence.
The political landscape in the United States is at its most divisive since the civil war. Neither side of the aisle has worked with the other in many constructive ways on domestic policy. However, there is hope that a partnership is being foraged in foreign policy that may lead the parties to work together elsewhere. Yet, polarisation in a deadlocked Congress may be exacerbated by a divided Republican Party, held captive by a small internal faction, which is unable to legislate or respond to a crisis. These tensions are building upon one another and could lead to violence if one side loses to the other and members of the losing faction fear what it will mean for their way of life.
With recent history showing that some groups are willing to commit themselves to violence for the political cause, the situation over the next two years may prove to be exceptionally difficult. Multiple societal stresses and a more relaxed view of political violence mean that conflict is likely to erupt unless the issue is taken seriously and effectively mitigated by the governing authorities.
Western Sahara Conflict: Geopolitics of Natural Resources, Foreign Actors and Humanitarian Impact
This report, a collaboration between the Middle East Watch and Conflict & Security Watch Programmes, undertakes an intensive examination of the conflict in Western Sahara. Covering the conflict’s historical, economic and humanitarian dimensions, the report explains the decades-long Moroccan sovereign claims over Western Sahara and highlights the critical humanitarian and economic risks emerging from the conflict.
Read the report HERE
Mapping Transnational Organised Crime
This special report with the Conflict and Security Watch examines the risks that stem from transnational organised crime activities. Taking a case study approach, we explore some of the most pervasive criminal markets including those of illicit drugs, arms, charcoal, timber, and most devastatingly, humans. From these analyses, we find that organised crime can create or compound several threats to operations including undermining human rights consideration, sustainability initiatives, and fuelling corruption and conflict.
Read the report HERE
Moore v. Harper: A Supreme Court decision that could reshape the American political landscape
2022 is proving to be a defining year for US Supreme Court decisions. Over the summer, the Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade nationwide, leaving abortion legislation to the states. The decision upended decades of settled law and set a precedent for the court to overturn other seemingly settled issues.
One case under review by the Court this autumn and winter is Moore v. Harper. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether or not a state’s House of Representatives has ultimate authority over federal elections in their state, especially over the drawing of electoral districts. The case was brought to the Court by representatives of the North Carolina state legislature who are challenging the state court’s authority over elections.
The North Carolina state legislature’s argument is based on a theory known as the “independent state legislature (ISL) theory.” Proponents of the ISL theory suggest that state legislatures, particularly lower houses, are granted near absolute authority over federal elections in their states. This notion is based on two clauses of the US Constitution: the Elections Clause, which gives state legislatures wide-ranging powers over federal elections in their state, and the Presidential Electors Clause, which directs state legislatures to appoint electors to choose the president.
Based on the Court’s rulings in 2022, it seems possible that it will side with the North Carolina legislature’s reading of the Constitution, which empowers state legislatures to enact laws governing elections - such as the drawing of electoral districts.
The risk to elections
If the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina legislators, electoral integrity in the United States could be called into question. For example, state legislatures would be able to gerrymander, that is, manipulate the boundaries of electoral districts to the benefit of one party or the other, without any checks over their ability to do so.
As a result, if North Carolina’s new electoral maps are accepted, it will hand the Republican Party 10 of North Carolina’s 14 congressional districts (71% of the state’s seats). The potential imbalance is illustrated by the 2020 presidential election: 49.93% voted for Trump, while 48.59% voted for Biden in 2020. Similar figures were shown in the 2022 midterms: 52% of voters voted Republican and 48% Democrat in the House elections, while the state Senate election resulted in 50% of voters voting Republican and 47% Democrat.
FiveThirtyEight, a news outlet specialising in opinion polls, illustrated how gerrymandering can be used to shape national elections. Using Michigan as an example, the competition for seats in the House of Representatives is as follows: 4 democrats, 6 Republicans, and 4 competitive seats, before redrawing electoral maps. However, the state legislature is controlled by the Republican Party. Therefore, using the precedent set by North Carolina, legislators could return a map with 10 Republican seats to 4 for the Democrats (Michigan voted 50.62% - 47.84% for Biden in 2020 and 47.25% - 47.03% for Trump in 2016). One caveat to this example, however, is the power of the Michigan Election Commission, which currently draws district boundaries. This raises the question of whether, in a post-Moore world where the Supreme Court sides with state legislatures, election commissions would retain their authority or whether legislatures would take it away from them?
A shift in the balance of the House of Representatives could have an impact, however remote, on presidential elections. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular vote and the Electoral College. However, as no candidate won an outright majority, the US House of Representatives decided the outcome, resulting in a victory for John Quincy Adams (he won 13 state delegations, Jackson won 7 and William Crawford won 4). Adams was preferred to Jackson mainly because of the successful politicking of his ally Henry Clay. Clay held considerable influence in Congress as Speaker of the House and used it to lobby for the election of Adams at the expense of Jackson who was more popular among the electorate. Clay was eventually rewarded with a position as Secretary of State.
Something similar could happen in the future. One scenario is that the Republican ticket could split in 2024, as Trump has announced his intentions to run, but some Republicans have signalled that they want to move forward with a different candidate, possibly Ron Desantis. In theory, Desantis, Trump, and Biden could all win enough electoral votes that none of them could win a majority. In that case, the House of Representatives, which leans Republican in a majority of states, would choose its preferred candidate. Consequently, state delegations could choose the least popular candidate, causing controversy and contributing to further democratic backsliding.
The risk of violence
Political violence can follow elections for a variety of reasons, such as unfair elections (perceived or real), legislative unresponsiveness, corruption, or any other element that may challenge the legitimacy of the elected body. Partisans, feeling hopeless, then react by going outside the established norms to achieve their political objectives.
An entrenched, unresponsive, and unrepresentative government can be a trigger for political violence. By allowing states to gerrymander their electoral districts, a party can entrench itself in power and cause a section of the population to lose the opportunity to change existing policies. An entrenched party can fall victim to violence if it adopts unpopular policies that are insensitive to the wishes of its citizens or fails to act appropriately when a crisis hits. In the mildest cases, this may take the form of protests, while in the most extreme cases, it could involve rioting, insurrections, and rebellions.
There are concerning signs that a large group of Americans believe that elections are unfair. Prior to the 2020 presidential election, 30% of Republican voters, 13% of Democrats, and 26% of all voters thought that votes would not be counted fairly. Since the 2020 election, the perception of unfairness has only increased, with 28% of voters saying they had little to no confidence in the accuracy of the 2022 midterm elections before they happened.
In 2022, a UC Davis research asked Americans their views on the use of violence for political purposes, and found that one in five respondents thought that political violence is justified, at least in some circumstances. 3%, the equivalent of 7 million Americans, responded that political violence is usually or always justified. It was also found that 7.1% of people (about 18 million people) would be willing to kill a person to advance an important political goal. Similar results have been reported in other studies, confirming that a sizable portion of Americans, at least on paper, would be willing to commit acts of violence in order to advance their preferred policies and candidates.
The January 6 insurrection is the manifestation of the shift in American politics towards violence. But it is not an outlier. Over the last decade, politically motivated violence, also viewed as ideologically motivated terrorism, has increased. Much of this increase in violence can be explained by the growing hostility of partisans to a party they see as a threat to their way of life.
Yet, violence is unlikely to lead to regime change. The vast majority of Americans seem determined to defend democracy and attempt to reform the government institutions through constitutional means. However, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina legislature, political violence could become more common, with more small-scale events rather than large-scale acts of violence. Only time will tell, as the 2022 midterms, as contentious as they were, saw little to no violence. The real test will come in the 2024 presidential election, depending on who runs, as the last presidential election resulted in an insurrection at the US Capitol.