Theories on involvement in political violence provide a useful theoretical basis for the study of female inclusion in combat in non-state armed groups. However, apart from the fact that the roles of women are generally overlooked in this part of the literature, one of the main limitations of mainstream theories on involvement in political violence is its heavy
56
individual-bias. With the shift away from state-centric theories and an increasing focus on individual and organisational factors (Arjona and Kalyvas, 2012, Guichaoua, 2012, Arjona et al., 2015), another relevant branch of literature has emerged. It has its roots in the 1980s and focuses
on decision-making processes in non-state armed organisations. This part of the literature argues that non-state armed groups are not essentially different from non-violent organisations – such as political parties or business companies, which organisational theory has traditionally focused on. This – relatively new – strand of the literature thus calls for the study of non-state armed organisations through an organisational theory lens (Crenshaw, 1985, Oots, 1989, McCormick, 2003, Zwikael, 2007, Asal and Rethemeyer, 2008, Dalton and Asal, 2011, Shapiro, 2012, Shapiro and Siegel, 2012, Hegghammer, 2013, Shapiro, 2013). Theories on organisational decision-making overlap with some of the theories on involvement in political violence (which were discussed in the previous section of this chapter), insofar as they also focus on the rational character of organisational decision-making. By focusing on the decision-making of groups, this approach offers the additional advantage of overcoming the strong individual-bias (which can be found in existing theoretical literature), on why involvement in political violence occurs.
57
discuss the extent to which this branch of the literature will be used to help explain organisational motivations for the inclusion of female fighters in non-state armed groups.
Applying organisational theory to the study of non-state armed actors
Organisational theory, which has its roots in sociology, economics and political science, is concerned with the study of political or business organisations such as companies or bureaucracies (Cunliffe, 2008). Analyses tend to include organisational structures, norms, behaviour, dynamics and decision-making.
Organisational theorists working on non-state armed groups oppose many non-academic depictions of non-state armed organisations – which tend to present violent groups as essentially different from other socio-political actors, by often stressing their alleged irrationality. Efforts to view non-state armed groups through an organisational theory lens go back as far as the mid-1980s and Martha Crenshaw’s work on non-state armed group’s behaviour (Crenshaw, 1985, 1987). Crenshaw argues that, just like many non-violent organisations, non-state armed groups are characterised by their members’ "functionally differentiated roles", collective goals, defined decision-making structures and authoritative leadership (Crenshaw, 1985:
58
466).
Another problematic aspect of some representations of non-state armed actors is their depiction as one monolithic unit. Detailed analyses of intra- group dynamics, for example, are often missing. To a certain extent, this is
due to the often secretive nature of these groups and the fact that it can be difficult to gain access to the inner circle of illegal armed organisations (Dolnik, 2013b). However, the lack of analyses focusing on intra-group dynamics is also due to a tendency to vilify and essentialise non-state armed groups, and to present them as irrational evil actors, rather than depict them as the complex organisations they tend to be.
Taking into account the intra-group structures and dynamics affecting non- state armed groups is of particular importance when studying organisational decision-making processes, as these often have an impact on why and how decisions are being made (Crenshaw, 1985, Crenshaw, 1987, Oots, 1989, Shapiro, 2012). Applying insights from organisational theory to the study of non-state political violence can be helpful in this context as it takes into account the organisational decision-making, whilst also acknowledging that these organisations are comprised of individuals. Early studies of non-state political violence from an organisational theory perspective illustrate how analysing external group relations (including coalition forming, outside support and external competition), and internal cohesiveness (or the lack
59
thereof), can help us to understand how and why group decision-making occurs (Oots, 1989: 148-149).
One of the main assumptions of the literature that applies organisational theory to non-state armed groups is that violent political groups are not
essentially different from non-violent political or business organisations. In this vein, Oots (1989: 149) rightly stresses that it is only their focus on (psychological and physical) violence as a strategic and tactical tool which distinguishes non-state armed groups from other political organisations. By analysing documents produced by non-state armed organisations, Shapiro and Siegel come to the same conclusion:
Indeed, groups as diverse as the Polish Underground in Warsaw, Red Brigades, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), Aum Shinrikyo, Fatah, al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda in Iraq generated paperwork that, were it not for its violent subject matter, could have come from any traditional organization (Shapiro and Siegel, 2012: 40).
If non-state violent political organisations are indeed organised as any other organisation, Oots rightly points out that it can be expected that their decision-making is influenced by the same, or similar, motivations than those of non-violent political organisations (1989: 150).
60 Studying non-state armed groups as rational actors
Whilst the notion that perpetrators of non-state political violence exhibit
pathological features is widespread in media and political discourses (as discussed in section one), approaches to the study of political violence based on organisational theory stress non-state armed groups’ rational decision- making. In this regard, they are consonant with other rational approaches to the study of political violence such as the theories of involvement in political violence discussed above. Both reject notions of irrationality of non-state armed individuals’ and groups’ behaviour, because “[t]o assume that someone is 'crazy' implies that his or her behavior is neither explainable nor predictable” (Oots, 1989: 149-150). If we believe that all non-state armed actors’ actions are indeed entirely guided by irrational thinking, it is impossible to explain or predict possible behaviour. If that is the case, there is no reason to study political violence or the individuals, states and organisations involved in them – at least not from a political science perspective. On a practical level, to assume that all perpetrators of non-state political violence are guided by irrational motivations can even be dangerous, as it can lead those opposing them to underestimate non-state armed groups’ capabilities – which can result in increased vulnerabilities of possible targets of non-state political violence. Another related risk is that
61
ascribing irrational motives to non-state armed groups can lead states to eschew political, negotiated settlements of conflict and instead advocate for ruthless military responses in the struggle against non-state armed organisations – as there is arguably not much point in trying to negotiate with inherently irrational actors.
But what does viewing non-state armed actors as rational actors entail? Shapiro (2013: 20) specifies that there are three factors which highlight the rationality of non-state armed actors. First, non-state armed organisations “match means to ends [...] Second, they examine a limited number of options, choosing the one that yields the highest expected gain”. Third, in strategic interactions, they “typically consider the impact of their actions in a fairly nuanced way” (Shapiro, 2013: 20). Thus, non-state armed organisations' behaviour can be considered rational if they adopt a means- to-ends approach; choose from the number of options known to them the one expected to provide them with the highest expected gain; and evaluate the expected outcome of their actions and act accordingly. In other words, non-state militant organisations are what Shapiro calls "intendedly rational" in that they "match means to ends by explicitly comparing the value of different actions given limited information about the world" (Shapiro, 2013: 21).
62 Organisations matter
This study focuses on organisational motivations and decision-making. Many
existing publications on female political violence are characterised by a strong individual-bias. However, for a comprehensive analysis of female political violence, a multi-level analysis – taking into account individual, organisational and contextual factors, is key, as it is not possible to fully grasp the issue of female political violence without considering all factors that can potentially play a role in women’s involvement.
As part of such a multi-level analysis, this study includes a focus on the group level. In previous years, there has been some controversy over the role of organisations amongst scholars of non-state armed violence. The debate between Bruce Hoffmann and Marc Sageman – two leading terrorism scholars – on the role of organisations in non-state political violence, is illustrative of this disagreement. While Hoffmann (2008) contended that hierarchical organisations continued to play a key role and in fact, constituted one of the main threats, Sageman (2008, see also Hoffman and Sageman, 2008) argued that the influence of hierarchical organisations was on the decrease and that there was instead a trend towards loosely organised cells and individual actors playing a much more important role. While Hoffmann’s and Sageman’s debate focuses on Islamist-inspired
63
organisations, the argument can be extended to other non-state armed actors. In fact, in the debate, Sageman explicitly referred to debates on right- wing extremist actors when applying the term ‘leaderless resistance’ to the study of Islamist groups.
Contributing to the debate between Hoffmann and Sageman, other scholars stress that the two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive (Acharya and Marwah, 2010: 2), as even loosely organised cells of perpetrators of political violence are not devoid of any organisation, hierarchy and leadership. Thus, organisations continue to matter. Most individuals carrying out political violence rely on an organisational network providing them with moral, financial and logistical support. Individual motivations are crucial because except for cases of conscription (which did not play a role in Lebanon, as will be discussed in Chapter Four), without individuals willing to take up arms, there will not be any combatants. However, without an organisation which agrees to include the individual in its ranks, train, equip, finance and support them in their endeavour, the impact an individual without direct links to a group can have will remain limited. Individual motivation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to carry out high- impact attacks or implement a long-term strategy. As pointed out by Acharya and Marwah, "to produce successful and high impact attacks, terrorists do need some form of organization" (Acharya and Marwah, 2010:
64
2). This holds true for both men and women planning to join a non-state violent organisation. Thus, examining organisational motivations and decision-making is crucial in explaining (female) political violence.
A multi-level approach to the study of organisational decision-making
In order to fully understand non-state political violence, it is essential to adopt a multi-level approach, taking into account individual, organisational and contextual factors. As discussed above, one of the limitations of existing literature on non-state political violence is the strong individual-bias of many studies attempting to explain why and how political violence occurs. Organisational theory approaches to the study of non-state armed organisations can prove helpful when studying decision-making processes on involvement in non-state political violence.
Despite the current focus on individual motivations in much of the literature, precedents of multi-level approaches have a relatively long history in the study of non-state armed violence. Summarising possible approaches to the study of non-state armed groups’ behaviour in 1987, Martha Crenshaw – one of the founders of the discipline of terrorism studies, presented two competing explanations. Whilst she focuses on terrorist groups, the largely undefined and often blurry lines between ‘terrorist’ and other non-state
65
armed groups with a political agenda, makes her findings relevant to other types of non-state armed political organisations as well.
It is possible to think in terms of two basic explanations for how the conspiratorial organizations that practice terrorism behave. [...] The first explanation is based on the assumption that the act of terrorism is a deliberate choice by a political actor. […] Terrorism is interpreted as a response to external stimuli, particularly government actions (Crenshaw, 1987: 13).
Thus, according to this first explanation, non-state armed organisations' behaviour is a reaction to contextual pressures created by the actions (or lack thereof) of other actors in the socio-political environment the armed organisation finds itself in. According to the second explanation discussed by Crenshaw, it is rather intra-group dynamics which have a direct impact on armed organisations’ decision-making and behaviour – or as Crenshaw puts it, it “focuses on the internal politics of the organization” and non-state armed groups’ “behavior represents the outcome of the internal dynamics of the organization rather than strategic action” (Crenshaw, 1987: 19). This categorisation into contextual and organisational motivations has been applied and developed by a number of scholars working on non-state political violence. McCormick, for example, acknowledges the existence of the two categories Crenshaw describes, calling them strategic and
66
organisational explanations. He adds a third category, that of psychological theories which explain non-state political violence through the framework of individual psychology (McCormick, 2003) – very similar to the theories described in the section on psychological explanations of involvement in
political violence discussed above.
Another explanation of non-state armed groups’ behaviour can be found in Shapiro’s study on the decision-making of non-state armed groups. His detailed typology of terrorist decision-making (Shapiro, 2012: 7-13), includes strategic and non-strategic explanations. Strategic theories comprise: (1) tactical choices and the strategic environment (taking into account the group’s reactions to other relevant actors, such as its opponents and supporters), (2) resource constraints (including external and popular support), and (3) organisational constraints (such as ideology, size and control over territory). Non-strategic challenges, according to Shapiro, consist of technological constraints and internal agency problems, such as intra-group managerial challenges. Thus, while Shapiro further refines previous approaches (such as the ones developed by Crenshaw and McCormick), by adding resource constraints to the contextual pressures described in previous literature, the individual level is still missing from his analysis. This is why, for the purpose of this study, a combination of Crenshaw’s, McCormick’s and Shapiro’s typologies will be used, focusing my
67
analysis on individual, organisational and contextual pressures. Mirroring existing literature on female political violence and for the sake of clarity, contextual pressures will be divided into security-related factors and societal aspects. I will discuss this further in the following section on existing
literature on non-state female political violence.
Summary
The theoretical framework of this study is based on existing theories of: (1) involvement in non-state political violence and (2) organisational decision- making in non-state armed groups. The rational, process-based and context- focused explanations in particular are useful in this context, as they allow for non-state armed actors to be viewed as similar to other individuals and groups, and as guided by elements of rationalist thinking. Moreover, this set of theories encourages the researcher of political violence to take into account the role of the context in involvement in non-state armed groups and to view involvement as a process.
One major limitation of existing theories of involvement in political violence, is their strong focus on the individual level. This is why, for the purpose of this study, theories on how and why individuals and groups get involved in non-state political violence will be combined with theories on organisational
68
decision-making. These theories draw on insights from economic and political organisational theory and have been adapted to the study of non- state armed groups by a number of conflict and terrorism studies scholars. The have the advantage of allowing us to view non-state armed groups as
the complex organisations which they tend to be. Both sets of theories – those on involvement in political violence and those on organisational decision-making – complement each other as they are based on very similar assumptions, including the belief that perpetrators of non-state political