Read more
In the mid 1990s, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya was one of the most active terrorist groups in Egypt. By 2002, the organization renounced armed action, dismantled its military wing, and published volumes of ideological revisions. What explains such a drastic transformation?
The Violence Pendulum answers this question, and provides a dynamic theoretical framework that explains why Islamist organizations move towards or away from violence. Matesan applies this theory to four Islamist groups in Egypt and in Indonesia, tracing their evolution, and showing how specific historical junctures can be understood within a broader framework of tactical change.
List of contents
- List of Tables and Figures
- A Note on Transliteration
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1. Why Islamist Opposition Groups Change their Tactical Outlook
- 2. The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Potential for Violent Escalation
- 3. Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya: From Terrorism to Nonviolence
- 4. Darul Islam in West Java: The Rise and Fall of an Islamist Insurgency in Indonesia
- 5. Jemaah Islamiyah and the Ambiguities of Disengagement from Violence
- Conclusion
About the author
Ioana Emy Matesan is Assistant Professor of Government and Tutor in the College of Social Studies at Wesleyan University. Her research focuses on contentious politics and Islamist movements, with a particular interest in Middle East politics, political violence, and democratization. Her articles have appeared in numerous journals, including International Negotiation, Journal of Global Security Studies, Nations and Nationalism, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, and Terrorism and Political Violence.
Summary
Would the Islamic State ever renounce violence? In the current political climate, the question seems preposterous. Yet, at the height of a terrorist campaign against tourists in Egypt during the 1990s, nobody expected that the group behind the attacks would issue and adhere to a nonviolence initiative. What drives groups to shift between nonviolence and violence? When do opposition groups move away from armed action, and why do some organizations renounce violence permanently, whereas others refrain temporarily? In The Violence Pendulum, Ioana Emy Matesan offers a theory of tactical change that explains both escalation and de-escalation in order to answer these questions.
Matesan's analysis traces the historical evolution of four Islamist groups: the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt, and Darul Islam and Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia. Drawing from archival materials, interviews, and reports, she focuses on turning points in each organization. Ultimately, she finds that Islamist groups alter their tactics in response to the perceived need for activism, shifts in the cost of violent versus nonviolent resistance, and internal or external pressures on the organization. Groups turn to violence when grievances escalate, violent resistance is feasible and publicly tolerated, and there are internal or external pressures to act. In turn, groups renounce armed action when violence costs them too much, disillusionment eclipses the perceived need for continued activism, and leaders are willing to rethink the tactics and strategies of the group. By uncovering the reasons for escalation and de-escalation across a range of political environments, The Violence Pendulum reshapes our understanding of how decisions are made--and how nonviolence can be achieved--in armed groups.
Additional text
This carefully researched and richly detailed study explores the answers to one of the most vexing questions about extremist movements — why do they choose violence, and why do they abandon it? Taking the internal perspective of movements in Egypt and Indonesia, this book shows that these are strategic choices influenced by perceptions of opportunity and potential support. Its thoughtful insights into the pendulum of violence and nonviolence have global implications for understanding the dynamics of extremist movements around the world.
