




































1 

 

POLITICAL EXCLUSION AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM IN AFRICA 

Hyginus Chibuike EZEBUILO 

 

Abstract 

Many scholars have noted the prevalence of domestic terrorism in Africa and 

elsewhere. Scholars argue that ethnically motivated terrorism is caused by 

problems of political exclusion, and many nation-states have alienated distinct 

ethnic groups, even under domestic constitutions and practices. This study 

examines whether the exclusion of ethnic groups from political power is an 

important contributing factor to domestic terrorism.  If political exclusion causes 

ethnic terrorism, can reforms promoting greater ethnic inclusion and democracy 

reduce risks of terrorism? Global concern over terrorism and how to reduce the 

severity of terrorist attacks have been growing. Although much attention has been 

focused on transnational terrorist events, most recorded terrorist activities tend to 

be fully domestic, and often tied to groups with claims against their home 

government. Previous studies have shown that ethnic exclusion and restricted 

political access can motivate civil war, and evidence indicates that ethnic 

accommodation and political reform can reduce the risk of civil war. The same 

logic should apply to ethnic terrorism as well. This line of research is to examine 

whether political inclusion can reduce terrorism by lessoning motivation and 

expanding opportunities for alternative actions. This goes beyond the question of 

whether ethnic groups that are excluded/included engage in more/fewer terrorist 

attacks, and examine whether resort to terrorism by the group decline after 

inclusion.  

Keywords: Ethno-political, Exclusion, Inclusion, Terrorism, Africa. 

 

 

1. Introduction 

Irrespective of the measure of terrorism and estimation method, ethno-political 

exclusion fuels domestic terrorism, and as Nwabunka (2004:23) rightly noted, 

many countries have alienated distinct ethnic groups, even under domestic 

constitutions and practices. Ethnic groups are not formally deprived of political 

rights or systematically discriminated against, but often have felt marginalized in a 

nation-state with a dominant group. Some groups have pursued national liberation 

from foreign domination through political violence, and terrorism. This is a 

plausible strategy for small groups with few opportunities to take on the state 

directly through conventional warfare. 

Empirical studies deem the political exclusion of ethnic minority groups to be a 

significant cause of civil war, rebellions and mass political violence (Moore 1998; 

Regan and Norton 2005). However, the question of whether or not the political 

marginalization of ethnic groups motivates and sustains terrorist activity is largely 

unexplored. To the best of my knowledge, Piazza’s (2012) and Choi (2010) as well 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

2 

 

as Choi and Piaza (2016) studies are the only empirical researches that examine the 

effect of minority political discrimination on domestic terrorism, reporting no 

significant effect. Thus, with a special focus on domestic terrorism, I extend the 

existing researches on minority political exclusion and terrorism, contending that 

political exclusion creates frustration and political grievances among ethnic groups 

who in some instances resort to terrorist violence in an effort to address such 

grievances. 

One may wonder why such ethnic groups would resort to terrorism rather than 

instigate civil war; this study argues that these groups turn to terrorism because 

ethnic ties enhance their collective security and because fewer material capabilities 

are necessary when limiting operations to a local area. When people resent a 

government that has failed to recognize their tribal, racial, religious or linguistic 

group, it is more common strategy to withdraw from government control through 

autonomy or semi-autonomy rather than to jump into an insurgency movement; the 

former requires fewer material capabilities and less sophistication while still 

allowing disgruntled people to address their grievances. Terrorism, then, is more 

cost effective than civil war and thus becomes a more viable option for some 

individuals in an ethnic group that intend to pursue their political rights through the 

use of force. 

This paper is divided into eight sections. The first is introduction; the second 

contains fundamental statements while the third attempts an understanding of 

terrorism as a concept. Sections four and five contain a survey of the effects of 

political exclusion on terrorism and how this phenomenon is hostile to the African 

traditional heritage respectively. The sixth section suggests inclusion as a prospect 

for reducing domestic terrorism, the seventh attempts policy oriented advice 

through which the destructive effects of domestic terrorism can be minimized or 

eradicated, while section eight concludes the paper. 

 

2. Hypothesis/Theses Statements 

Let us state our first thesis here as follows: countries with large numbers of people 

that are politically excluded due to their ethnic background will experience more 

domestic terrorist attacks. We reason that as the population size of politically 

excluded ethnic minorities increases, terrorist attacks become more severe and 

result in higher number of casualties. 

There are two components to such reasoning. First, we regard numbers of 

casualties due to terrorism to be a reliable accompanying indicator to raw count of 

terrorist attacks; while the number of domestic terrorist attacks occurring in a year 

indicates the frequency of terrorist activity, the count of persons killed or injured in 

terrorist attacks indicates the scope and level of intensity of terrorist activity. 

Taken together, they provide a more complete picture of overall domestic terrorist 

activities in a country, thereby increasing our confidence in the findings of this 

study. Secondly, previous research suggests that ethno-political exclusion will 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

3 

 

have a particularly strong effect on terrorist casualties. For example, Kaufman 

(1998:13) demonstrates that violent inter-ethnic conflicts result in higher casualty 

rates and more frequent atrocities committed against civilians by participants. 

These findings are not trivial given that recent studies have noted changes between 

the ‘old terrorism’ of the 1970s and 1980s, which was motivated by ideology, to 

the ‘new terrorism,’ which is motivated by religious and ethnic identity Choi & 

Piazza (2016:12). 

This new trend indicates that while the number of incidents is declining, the 

lethality of incidents is rising, giving way to our second hypothesis, namely: 

countries with larger numbers of people that are politically excluded due to their 

ethnic background will experience higher casualties from domestic terrorism. The 

terrorist group is not necessarily of an ethnic origin fighting a course for an ethnic 

group, as is the case with Boko Haram in Nigeria, but much of the recruits will 

likely be constituted by members of the excluded group who have been nursing 

grievances against an unjust government. 

In this study, therefore, we argue that ethno-political exclusion is a cause of 

domestic, as opposed to transnational, terrorism. Domestic terrorism is 

conventionally defined as terrorist attacks in which the perpetrator and the victim, 

or target, are of the same nationality and the attacks transpires within one country. 

Transnational terrorism is defined as attacks where the perpetrator and victim are 

of different nationalities and the attack is either cross-border, launched in a 

different country from that of the perpetrator, or lunched locally against foreign 

targets, such as embassies, tourists, or other foreign nationals Choi & Piazza 

(2016:13). Both the qualitative case studies alluded to above and the theoretical 

framework developed by Gurr (2000:24) and Crenshaw (1981:34) depict ethno-

political exclusion as a precipitant of domestic political violence and terrorism. 

In a similar vein, we assert that the experience of political exclusion leads to a rise 

in localized grievances against the State and sometimes, prompts the formation and 

maintenance of terrorist movements that select local targets. We do acknowledge 

the possibility that terrorist groups motivated by political exclusion might perhaps 

choose to commit some transnational terrorism to better popularize their 

grievances and political agendas. However, this is a very rare occurrence, mostly 

due to the fact that it requires a much higher level of sophistication and capacity on 

the part of the domestic terrorist group. 

 

3. Understanding the Concept of Terrorism 

The history of terrorism is probably coextensive with the history of political 

violence. The term ‘terrorism,’ however, is relatively recent; it has been in use 

since late 18th century. Its use has repeatedly shifted in some significant respects. 

Moreover, in contemporary political discourse, the word is often employed as a 

polemical term whose strong emotional charge occludes its somewhat vague 

descriptive meaning. The state also becomes terrorists in many occasions to some 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

4 

 

target or enemy citizens. As a matter of fact, the regimes of totalitarianism adopt 

terrorism as their method of rule. As Hannah Arendt (1958:464) put it, “terror is 

the essence of totalitarian domination.” Sometimes, the representatives of 

totalitarian regimes, sensitive to the pejorative connotation of the word, portray the 

practice as defense of the state from internal enemies. However, state terrorism is 

not the preserve of totalitarian regimes. Some non-totalitarian states have resorted 

to terrorism against enemy civilians as was the case in Nigeria and several African 

countries, and elsewhere. All this tends to get in the way of sustained rational 

discussion of the nature and moral standing of terrorism and the best ways of 

coping with it. 

Nevertheless, there are two fundamental and related questions with regards to 

terrorism. The first is conceptual: what is terrorism? The second is moral: can 

terrorism be morally justified? Philosophers have offered a range of positions on 

both questions. With regard to the problem of defining terrorism, the dominant 

approach seeks to acknowledge the core meaning ‘terrorism’ has in common use. 

Terrorism is understood as a type of violence the proximate aim of which is the 

experience of terror or fear. Neither violence nor terror is inflicted for its own sake, 

but rather for the sake of a further aim such as coercion, or some more specific 

political objective. But there are also definitions that sever the conceptual 

connection of terrorism with violence or with terror. 

With regards to the moral standing of terrorism, philosophers differ both on how 

that is to be determined and what the determination is. Consequentialists propose 

to judge terrorism, like everything else, in light of its consequences. Non-

consequentialists argue that its moral status is not simply a matter of what 

consequences, on balance, terrorism has, but is rather determined by what it is. 

Positions on the morality of terrorism range from justification when its 

consequences are good, or when some deontological moral requirements are 

satisfied, to its absolute, or almost absolute, rejection. 

After the heyday of totalitarian terrorism in the 1930s and 1940s, Arendt (1958:23) 

domestic terrorism continued to be practiced by military dictatorships in many 

parts of the world, albeit in a less sustained and pervasive way. But the type of 

terrorism that came to the fore in the second half of the 20th century and in early 

21st century is that employed by insurgent organizations. Many movements for 

national liberation from colonial rule resorted to it, either as the main method of 

struggle or as a tactic complementing guerrilla warfare. So did some separatist 

movements Arendt 1958:25). Some groups driven by perceived injustices, political 

exclusion or some ideologies took to terrorism as the way of trying to destroy what 

they considered an unjust, oppressive socio-economic-political system. 

This type of terrorism is, by and large, indiscriminate in its choice of target: it 

attacks men and women of whatever political (or apolitical) views, social class, 

and walk of life; young, and old, adults and children. It shoots at people, or blows 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

5 

 

them up by planting bombs in office buildings, places of worship, markets, cafes, 

cinemas, places of religious worship, on buses or planes, or in other vulnerable 

public places. And as terrorism has by now acquired a very pejorative meaning, 

no-one applies the word to their own actions or to actions and campaigns of those 

they sympathize with. Insurgents practicing terrorism portray their actions as 

struggle for liberation and seek to be considered and treated as soldiers rather than 

terrorists or criminals. They often depict their enemy – the government, or the 

agencies of the social, political and economic system – as the true terrorists. For 

them, perhaps, the test of terrorism is not harms done but rather the ultimate aim of 

doing it. If the ultimate aim is liberation or justice, the violence used in order to 

attain it is not terrorism, whereas the violence aiming at maintaining oppression or 

injustice is. 

Government, on the other hand, tends to paint all insurgent violence with the brush 

of terrorism. They typically assume that terrorism is by definition something done 

by non-state agents, and that a state can never be guilty of terrorism (although it 

can sponsor terrorist organizations). For them, the test of terrorism is not the harm 

done but who does it. When a state agency uses violence, it is an act of war, or 

reprisal, or defense of the security of the state and its citizens; when an insurgent 

group or some freedom fighters does the same, it is terrorism. Under these 

circumstances, one person’s terrorist is indeed another’s freedom fighter, and 

public debate about terrorism is largely conducted at cross purposes and to little 

effect. 

Today, the evaluative meaning of terrorism has shifted considerably. So has its 

descriptive meaning, but to a lesser degree. Whatever else the word may have 

meant, its ordinary use has typically indicated two things: violence and 

intimidation (the causing of great fear or terror, terrorizing). The dominant 

approach to the conceptual question in philosophical literature reflects this. 

Terrorism is usually understood as a type of violence. This violence is not blind or 

sadistic, but rater aims at intimidation and at some further political, social, or 

religious goal or, more broadly, at coercion. Per Bauhn defines (political) terrorism 

thus: “The performance of violent acts, directed against one or more persons, 

intended by the performing agent to intimidate one or more persons and thereby to 

bring about one or more of the agent’s political goals” (Buahn, 1989, p.28). It is 

the deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the 

aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they otherwise would 

not take. 

It is noteworthy that the above definitions put aside both the question of who the 

actor is and the question of what their ultimate objectives are, and focus on the 

action itself as well as the aim. They present terrorism as a way of acting that could 

be adopted by different agents and serve various objectives (mostly political). It 

can be employed by states or by non-state agents, and may promote national 

liberation or oppression, revolutionary or conservative causes (and possibly 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

6 

 

pursues some nonpolitical aims as well). One can be a terrorist and a freedom 

fighter; terrorism is not the monopoly of enemies of freedom. One can hold a high 

government or military office and design or implement a terrorist campaign; 

terrorism is not the preserve of insurgent. In this way, much of the relativism 

concerning who is and who is not a terrorist that has plagued contemporary public 

debate can be overcome; the general traits of terrorism being violence, against non-

combatants or innocent people, intimidation, and coercion. Meanwhile, this study 

adopts the definition of terrorism by the Global Terrorism Database (GTD): “the 

threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a 

political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation. 

The question remains in any case, whether terrorism can be morally justified. 

There is no single answer to this question, as there is no single conception of what 

terrorism is. Philosophers generally tend to hold the view that terrorism that targets 

non-combatants or innocent persons is much more difficult to justify than that 

which attacks only those who cannot plausibly claim innocence of the injustice or 

oppression at issue (and which accordingly does not count as terrorism on a narrow 

definition of the term). Our discussion therefore focuses on terrorism understood 

as violence against innocent civilians or common citizens, intended to intimidate 

and thereby to achieve some further (political) objectives. 

One might try to justify some acts or campaigns of violence of this kind in two 

ways. One could argue that the victims may be non-combatants or common 

citizens, but nevertheless are not innocent of the wrongs the terrorists are fighting 

against. Alternatively, one could concede the innocence of the victims and argue 

that attacks on them are nevertheless justified, either by their consequences or by 

some deontological considerations. In showing that an instance of violence was 

justified because targeted were not really innocent, we will have shown that the act 

of violence at issue was actually not a case of terrorism. This paper will not delve 

into the broad problem of morality of terrorism. It suffices to note that certain 

violent acts are truly triggered by social injustices, and they can be avoided by a 

reversal of injustices on the group concerned. In the long run, the perpetrators of 

both the violence and the injustice are equally terrorists.  

 

4. Political Exclusion: An Incentive to Domestic Terrorism 

It should be noted that Piazza’s (2012) study failed to find political discrimination 

against minority groups to be a consistently significant and substantive predictor of 

domestic terrorism when it was evaluated along with economic discrimination; we 

expect, however, to find a different result in this study as we operationalize 

political exclusion differently. We find that countries in which certain ethnic 

populations are excluded from political power are significantly more likely to 

experience domestic terrorist attacks and to suffer from terrorist casualties. 

Furthermore, ethnic group political exclusion is a more consistent and substantive 

predictor of domestic terrorist activity than general political repression or 

economic discrimination. 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

7 

 

When people resent a government that has failed to recognize their tribal, racial, 

religious or linguistic group, it is more common strategy to withdraw from 

government control through autonomy or semi-autonomy rather than to jump into 

an insurgency movement; the former requires fewer material capabilities and less 

sophistication while still allowing disgruntled people to address their grievances. 

Terrorism, then, is more cost effective than civil war and thus becomes a more 

viable option for ethnic groups that intend to pursue their political rights through 

the use of force. 

Furthermore, a terrorist movement which develops from a group of people with 

social, cultural or family ties provides a relatively stable support system. Shared 

ethnic ties may allow politically discriminated people to organize more easily into 

terrorist cells, to more readily provide emotional encouragement to their members, 

and more effectively prevent desertion or a breach of security. That is, ethnic 

groups may be better equipped to carry out successful terrorist operations as their 

deeply rooted social and cultural bonds provide an enhanced security and loyalty 

structure. As domestic terrorist organizations tend to create fewer cells and 

specialized teams, they are smaller in size than international terrorist organizations 

which often operate in several countries (Choi & Piazza, 2016). 

There is also a micro-foundational argument to be made linking the political 

exclusion of ethnic minorities to the increased probability that members from the 

excluded community will engage in terrorism. Terrorism is frequently defined as a 

form of political violence perpetrated against civilians. Research by Goodwin 

(2006) indicates that members of terrorist movements hailing from segments of 

society experiencing repression by the government frequently opt to target other 

civilians who they perceive as ‘complicit’ with, or as benefiting from government 

policies, particularly if complicit citizens are viewed as significantly more 

powerful ‘others.’ We use this framework to anticipate that radicalized individuals 

excluded from political life due to their ethnic background are, therefore, more 

likely to see the use of terrorist attacks against ‘complicit’ citizens – members of 

the ethnic majority – as legitimate behavior. 

Note that several case studies find the political exclusion of ethnic groups to be an 

import and precipitating factor for the formation of terrorist movements, 

community support for terrorism, and the maintenance of terrorist campaigns (for a 

summary, see Laqueur, 1999). For example, formal and informal barriers to 

influence representation in government have been credited with starting and 

fueling Kurdish terrorism in Iraq, Turkey and Iran, Moro terrorism in the 

Philippines, the Basque ETA movement in Spain (Choi & Piazza, 2016). Survey 

research by Nwabunka (2015:34) finds that political – along with socioeconomic – 

exclusion fosters feelings of alienation among South East of Nigeria and helps to 

drive radicalization and support for extremism by some members of the area. Other 

terrorist movements nominally motivated by different concerns frequently invoke 

ethnic issues centering on political marginalization and exclusion as a core driving 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

8 

 

force. For example, the Maoist Naxalite movement in India began in the late 1960s 

as a non-sectarian urban guerilla movement aiming to foment a communist 

insurrection in the State of West Bengal. However, when the Communist Party of 

India took power in the state legislature of West Bengal, the Naxalites shifted their 

struggle to the disenfranchisement of the aboriginal population living in the rural 

areas across South and Eastern India (Choi & Piazza, 2016).  

One expect exclusion to most significantly affect the local, rather than the 

transnational, environment for political violence. Although domestic terrorism is 

more pervasive than transnational terrorism and results in substantially more 

casualties (Choi & Piazza, 2016), it has, strangely, received less scholarly focus. 

We argue that the political exclusion of ethnically different people within a 

country increases the propagation of disgruntled individuals who, in the absence of 

access to executive power via orderly and nonviolent means are more likely to 

support the use of domestic terrorism to address grievances. One may suggest that 

the turn to terrorism is more likely if an excluded population consists of several 

smaller groups, whereas one large excluded group is more likely to instigate 

rebellion. By the same token, it is not difficult to imagine that a large excluded 

group would engage in domestic terrorism, as opposed to insurrection, because 

they do not necessarily possess a united military power capable of challenging the 

government. Simply put, whether an excluded population consists of one large 

ethnic group or many smaller ones, we expect domestic terrorism to arise in most 

cases where such groups are politically excluded due to their ethnic background. 

We find that the political exclusion of ethnic groups is a more significant and 

substantive predictor of domestic terrorism than general restriction of political 

participation (see Li 2005) or minority economic discrimination (see Pizza, 2012), 

a finding which holds true even after accounting for a possibility of reverse 

causality.  What follows is an assessment of how previous studies are related to our 

research topic. 

While the role of ethno-political exclusion as a precipitant of terrorism has been 

rarely addressed in the context of analysis, related topics, such as the role of 

regime type and restriction and/or tolerance of general political participation, have 

been widely discussed and examined. Though empirical research has generally 

found that domestic regimes experience more terrorism than do dictatorships (e.g., 

Pizza 2008), a frequently cited study by Li (2005) determined that some elements 

of democratic institutions promote terrorism, while others significantly reduce it. 

Li found that constraints on executive power, a hallmark of democratic rule, 

actually make states more likely to experience transnational terrorist attacks; 

however, he also found that countries with higher rates of popular political 

participation experience fewer terrorist incidents, suggesting that broadening 

democratic participation will reduce rates of terrorism (see also Chenowet, 2010). 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

9 

 

More importantly, Li’s political participation variable (through voting) may be 

misconstrued as a feature that leads to a decrease in transnational terrorism when it 

may have only a spurious effect. Li’s study conceptualizes that the higher the 

voting rate in democracies, the less likely transnational terrorism is to occur (Li, 

2005). However, because political nonparticipation (i.e., no voting) is pervasive 

within many full-fledged democracies such as the U.S., but less so within some 

emerging democracies like Nigeria, the high level of political participation may 

not necessarily be associated with a low level of terrorist incidents (see DeLuca, 

1995). Furthermore, as Powell (1982) properly points out, the voter turnout rate is 

affected by many institutional and attitudinal factors and may have little to do with 

whether citizens have a reasonable chance to have their interests represented 

through elected officials. Simply put, the actual patterns of political participation 

through voting are quite complex and may vary from country to country. 

This study argues that political participation may not affect terrorism. Low voting 

rates may simply indicate the prevalence of political apathy; political exclusion, on 

the other hand, exacerbates terrorism because it is likely to compel ethnic groups 

to fight for the political rights of which they are deprived. In this context, we 

expect that the political status of ethnic communities – the degree to which the 

political system in their home country integrates them into or excludes them from 

political decision making – is a more likely causal trigger for domestic terrorism 

than the overall measure of rates of political participation. 

Recent research by Piazza (2011) finds that countries qualified by economic 

discrimination against minority groups – defined using data from the Minorities at 

Risk (MAR) database as groups that collectively suffer from disadvantages in 

income, housing, employment and unequal access to government social services – 

experience higher levels of domestic terrorism. While we expect our research to 

confirm the above, we have theoretical reason to suspect that ethno-political 

exclusion is a distinctly strong and consistent predictor of terrorism even while 

considering the possibility of economic discrimination against minority groups. 

For example, research by Fox (1999, 2000) uses Gurr’s basic theory of exclusion, 

grievance, group identity and mobilization to link cultural identity-based 

grievances to political violence. For Fox, cultural identity (he focuses mainly on 

‘religious cultural communal identities’) are essential to people’s everyday lives. 

When they are threatened, or disparaged, potent group grievances are produced 

that are easily manipulated by extremists; this explains why conflicts over religious 

identity often result in higher levels of political violence. Juergensmeyer (1993) 

and Rapoport (1991) make similar observations about the intensity of conflicts 

over religious and cultural identities, and identify such conflicts as prime vehicles 

for terrorism. 

In this study, one regards the political exclusion of ethnic minorities to be an 

affront on group identity insofar as excluded groups share similar religious and 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

10 

 

cultural heritages. We then argue that when their access to state power is deprived, 

these groups are likely to express high levels of grievances and intensified 

resentment which will, then, motivate the turn toward domestic terrorism. 

Undoubtedly, the experience of economic discrimination will also produce 

collective grievances as distinct from motivations of identity politics and, 

accordingly, control for minority economic status in our empirics. 

There is a strong theoretical base to support the notion that countries with large 

ethnic populations excluded from political power would experience higher levels 

of domestic terrorist activity. Gurr’s (2000) work on deprivation as a root 

precipitation of riots, rebellion and civil war helps to provide some of the 

theoretical motivation for our assertion that political exclusion due to ethnicity is 

likely to lead the excluded to support or engage in domestic terrorism. Gurr argues 

that when ethnic and religious – and, in principle, socioeconomic – subgroups 

within society face collective political and economic deprivations, such as 

discrimination or lack of opportunities to participate in mainstream political or 

economic life, several transformations occur, which make political violence more 

likely. 

Initially, core anti-status quo grievances are formed and enhanced among group 

members by the experience of exclusion. This experience of grievance prompts the 

group to develop an enhanced sense of collective identity as well as a strong sense 

of alienation from the ethnic or religious majority in society, which, in turn, only 

serves to further reinforce the salience of group grievances. Then, enhanced group 

identity, alienation, and salient group grievances are exploited by elites within the 

community to radicalize members and mobilize opposition – both nonviolent and 

violent – to the state and status quo (Choi & Piazza, 2016). 

Though Gurr is primarily interested in explaining the onset of episodes of mass 

political violence like rebellions, the thrust of his argument has been applied by 

other scholars to the formation of terrorist movements within aggrieved ethnic 

populations and the mobilization of community support for terrorism. Work by 

Crenshaw (1981) maintains that regimes characterized by political exclusion of 

ethnic minority groups are particularly likely to experience terrorism. The fact is 

that when ethnic communities experience political discrimination and formal and 

informal barriers to equality, Crenshaw (1981:383) specifically depicts this 

situation as ethnic minorities…that are discriminated against by the majority 

population,’ they develop grievances against the state and larger society. These 

grievances fuel the construction of social protest movements seeking 

representation and political change. Choi and Piazza write: 

Fringe elements within the community will 

demand that direct action take place outside 

of mainstream governing institutions and 

processes and will, in extreme cases, 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

11 

 

advocate for terrorist violence. In the face of 

state unresponsiveness and continued 

repression, they will siphon community 

support away from mainstream nonviolent 

leaders and will cultivate their capacity to 

commit armed attacks (2016). 

Not surprisingly, the demands for inclusion or equal treatment that characterize the 

social protest movement will grow into stipulations for wider sociopolitical 

change, for greater ethno-political autonomy and/or calls for irredentism and 

independence. This change in demands is easily manipulated by extremists, greatly 

radicalizes the community, and raises the likelihood of involvement with terrorist 

movements. 

5. Political Exclusion is Inimical to the African  

Obviously, the issue at stake in ethno-political exclusion is unity and inclusiveness. 

The founding fathers, of the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U), according to 

Nyerere, set themselves two major objectives, namely the total liberation of Africa 

from colonialism and the unity of Africa. He regrets that the reality is that ours is 

the poorest and weakest continent in the world, and that our weakness is pathetic. 

Nyerere (1968:54) argues: 

Unity will not end our weakness, but until we 

unite, we cannot even begin to end that 

weakness. So this is my plea to the new 

generation of African leaders and African 

peoples: work for unity with the firm 

conviction that without unity, there is no 

future for Africa. 

He noted unequivocally his rejection of the glorification of the nation-state we 

inherited from colonialism, and the artificial nations we are trying to forge from 

that inheritance. For the implication is that we are all Africans trying very hard to 

be Ghanians or Tanzanians, which is impossible. For him, the outside world hardly 

recognizes our Ghanianess or Tanzanian-ness. What is recognized is our 

Africanness Nyerere (1968:34), which is being-with, and this is fundamentally 

hostile to political exclusion and its sister, terrorism. 

That is the way we – the people of Africa are all being perceived: as brothers. So, 

accepting the fact that we are all Africans: all Nigerians, all Ghanians, etc (and not 

that I am from Yoruba or Ashanti) gives you a much worthwhile challenge than 

the current desperate attempts to fossilize Africa or its various countries, into the 

wounds inflicted upon it by the vultures of imperialism. This is rather shameful; 

and we should not be proud of our shame. We must reject the return to colonialism 

or to the tribes. We must reject sociopolitical exclusion of our brothers. For there is 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

12 

 

richness of culture out there which we must do everything we can to preserve and 

share. 

An African, no doubt, has a distinctive outlook on life and a distinctive cultural 

identity. Individualism and capitalism are foreign to African traditional society and 

the African way of life which is communalistic. Africans have their own identity 

derived from a common heritage and different from the European culture, the 

European values and the European identity. The African for instance is truly 

religious. He understands that we cannot be truly human without being religious. 

This is unlike the European who tends to be more inclined to science than religion. 

The African identifies himself only in the “we” unlike the European who tends to 

emphasize the “I” at the detriment of the “we.” 

From the ongoing, it is clear that the traditional African society is not based on 

conflict, struggle or tension but on what Nyerere calls ‘familyhood,’ that is, family 

relationship Nyerere (1968:35). This, for him is the root of authentic African 

socialism. But in the modern world, this ‘familyhood’ will have to be extended 

beyond the confines of the extended family, beyond the confines of the tribe; and 

made to embrace the whole society, the whole country, the whole of Africa, and 

the whole human race. The capitalistic spirit of acquisition, individualism, the 

exploitation of man by man, class struggle, political exclusion and conflicts will all 

be excluded from society. Inequality will be eliminated and everybody will be 

prepared to work for the good of the community in any capacity.  Thus, the 

individual feels liberated, and only then will he pursue the goals of development 

and not those of conflicts and violence.  

The future of Africa, the development and modernization of Africa, is linked with 

its decolonization and detribalization. Indeed, many Africans, especially political 

leaders, had a vested interest in keeping Africa divided. Hence, they promote the 

course for the return to the tribe. That kind of political and social atavism spells 

catastrophe for Africa and should be avoided. Indeed, it would be the end of any 

kind of genuine development for Africa; and it would fossilize Africa into a worse 

situation than the one in which we are. Indeed, tribal atavism would be giving up 

any hope for African country and for Africa in general. For Africa has more need 

of unity and the strength that comes from unity than Europe. Ours should be a 

commitment to the practice of shared power and social wealth and the work 

necessary to achieve wealth. The government of a people in democratic scenario 

belongs to the people and not to a faction. In fact, sharing of power and wealth are 

other forms of communitarian exchange. But it is essential because without the 

principle and practice of sharing power and wealth, the social conditions for 

exploitation, oppression and inequality as well as terrorism and other forms of 

violence increased. The insistence on an African identity is, therefore, a 

worthwhile corrective against the phenomenon of political exclusion. 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

13 

 

The African identity is based on the assumption of human equality, on the belief 

that it is wrong for one person or tribe to dominate or exploit another, and on the 

knowledge that every individual hopes to live in a society as a free person able to 

live a decent life, in conditions of peace with his or her neighbour. It is above all 

human centered. It is concerned principally with the wellbeing, happiness and 

development of the human person; and it is in the context of shared political 

inclusion that the conditions for such wellbeing, happiness and development are 

best achieved. 

 

6. Prospects for Reducing Domestic Terrorism through Political Inclusion 

Political inclusion measures the extent to which all members of a society are able 

to access the institutions of democracy. This is the idea that every citizen, 

regardless of class, age, gender, group, culture and ethnic or religious background 

should have an equal right and opportunity to engage with and contribute to the 

functioning of the government institutions and processes (Bhojwani, 2015). For 

immigrants and ethnic minorities, this access allows them to be seen, be heard and 

be counted. 

It is important to distinguish between individual access and group access, 

specifically as it relates to minority groups. For example, if one individual from 

these groups, by virtue of her social or economic standing, is able to run for office, 

or participate in civil leadership, we cannot assume that a society is politically 

inclusive. A more accurate measure of political inclusion is the ability of any 

individual, regardless of her socioeconomic background or ethnicity, to access the 

levers of political power. What are the levers of political power that we need to 

ensure anyone can access? For the purpose of this study, let us look specifically at 

the ability and opportunity to be represented in government (President, President’s 

cabinets, ministers, chief of staff, etc) and to have voice in policymaking. These 

forms of inclusion allow us to be counted, be seen and be heard. 

Our democracy is strong when everyone participates. Lower levels of participation 

and representation weaken our democratic institutions, preserving power in the 

hands of a few – leaders, voters, and donors. These political elites then shape 

policy in their interests, rather than in the interests of the majority. When a society 

is diverse in ethnicity, in religion, etc, its leaders need to reflect those diverse 

perspectives. This representation is not simply ‘for show.’ To cast our votes, to 

speak our minds, and to hear our experiences reflected in policy contribute to our 

sense of inclusion, our ability to participate, our access to power. If we don’t feel 

our participation is welcome or possible, we feel marginalized and silenced. In the 

short-term, that can contribute to isolation and misunderstanding. In the long-term, 

it can contribute to radical tension and civil unrest. The challenge of integrating 

diverse populations into democracies often designed to serve the privileged few 

might seem daunting. But at its core, political integration or inclusion is rooted in 

three values: authenticity, patriotism, and accountability. This is the true nature of 

a civil society. Specifically, policymakers can ensure that these values are 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

14 

 

embedded into democratic institutions by going beyond diversity and 

representation to inclusion and equity. 

Societies whose political institutions are more inclusive and participatory tend to 

be more peaceful and resilient, just as societies practicing exclusion tend to be 

more vulnerable to fragility and conflict. Inclusive political processes are crucial to 

sustaining peace and conflict prevention, as they contribute to remedying structural 

inequalities and other root causes of conflict. Democracy is more likely to develop 

and endure when all segments of a society are able to participate and influence 

political outcomes without suffering bias or reprisal. But in many new and 

emerging democracies, large portions of the population are excluded from politics 

based on their ethnicity. Sometimes this exclusion is only implicit and not explicit. 

Nevertheless, these groups are practically marginalized and denied access 

executive powers of the society. 

Our argument is rooted in an analytic perspective wherein non-state actors choose 

terrorism to coerce a government into granting concessions. If ethnic exclusion 

motives resort to terrorism on behalf of ethnic groups, then shifts away from 

discrimination and towards inclusion should also have the potential to reduce 

incentives for terrorist attacks, raise the attractiveness of other, non-violent 

strategies for expressing grievances, and undermine the ability of terrorist 

organizations to recruit active participants. Previous research has tended to assume 

a causal symmetry, whereby inclusion must have the opposite effect of exclusion, 

and the effects of changes towards inclusion simply follow from the difference in 

levels of terrorism between groups that are already politically included and groups 

that are excluded from access to political power. It appears that violence can be 

difficult to eradicate altogether, especially when there is a history of ethnic terrorist 

activity. However, even if we see more attacks by the groups, the overall number 

of terrorist attacks generally declines after inclusion. Our analysis provides 

considerable support for the claim that domestic terrorism declines in response to 

political inclusion. 

Some scholars have examined the relationship between ethnic diversity and 

terrorism and find at best limited evidence for a relationship. A state could have 

limited ethnic diversity but high exclusion, or high diversity without political 

exclusion of any groups, as in contemporary South Africa (Gleditsch and Polo). 

Yet, unlike ethnic demography, the political status of an ethnic group can change 

dramatically, as shown by the example of South Africa pre/post-apartheid. 

However, in a more recent study using information from the Ethnic Power 

Relations data, Choi and Piazza (2016) demonstrate that countries with large 

politically excluded ethnic populations are more likely to experience terrorist 

attacks and suffer more casualties from terrorism. 

The size of the ethnically excluded population is a clear advance on the binary 

indicators of discriminated or disadvantaged groups, and better reflects motives 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

15 

 

and opportunities for mobilization and resort to terrorism. Yet, focusing on 

countries at large obscures the role of group agency and how the political status of 

an ethnic group affects behavior. For example, if both ethnic and other grievances 

stem from governments that are generally exclusive, then we may simply see more 

terrorism in general in countries with ethnic exclusion, but not necessarily 

ethnically motivated terrorism perpetrated by the excluded group. As an extreme 

example of misplaced agency, we could see organizations associated with 

dominant groups using terrorism to intimidate excluded groups, perhaps to prevent 

political mobilization. Plausible examples of this include hate crime against 

minority groups in the United States and South Africa. 

This study applies a group perspective to domestic terrorism, expecting that ethnic 

groups have potential grievances or motivations to engage in terrorism when they 

are excluded from political influence or lack autonomy. We believe that the 

relationship between ethnic exclusion and violence should apply even more 

strongly to terrorist violence than to civil war, giving differences in the 

opportunities for and the feasibility of attacks. The wide resource symmetries 

between ethnic groups and the state should make organizations linked to ethnic 

groups particularly likely to engage in terrorism, as the covert nature of terrorist 

tactics makes it possible to evade state repression and target more powerful 

opponents when conventional warfare is unrealistic or unlikely to be effective (see 

Findley and Young, 2012). 

Now, existing research has looked only at how current ethnic exclusion from 

political power is associated with terrorism and not whether changes away from 

active discrimination or towards inclusion can reduce domestic terrorism. If ethnic 

exclusion induces stronger incentives for terrorism, then we should also expect 

shifts in the direction of inclusiveness to reduce the motivation for terrorism. The 

above existing arguments on the effects of exclusion could be read as suggesting 

that any reduction in exclusion or move towards inclusion should likewise lessen 

terrorist activity. But this issue thus far has not attracted much direct theoretical or 

empirical attention. As we have observed, inclusion may also have limited ability 

to reduce terrorism when violent ethnic organizations have been established. 

Reforms to bring greater inclusion could come in two ways. First, and most 

directly, we can have group-specific inclusion, or changes in the political status of 

an ethnic group previously disadvantaged relative to a politically privileged ethnic 

group. Group-specific inclusion can include granting access to power for the group 

at the executive level, concessions offering regional autonomy, or reduction in 

overt discrimination against the group. Improvements in the political status of an 

ethnic group should reduce terrorist attacks by lessening motives for violent action. 

Changes in political status also will influence the ability of ethnic organizations to 

recruit for political violence. From our analytical perspective, any concessions 

towards greater political inclusion should satisfy some group members and induce 

substitution away from violence after inclusion. 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

16 

 

Existing models of the growth trajectory of terrorist organizations show that 

attacks over time are shaped by recruitment (Gleditsch and Polo). Given some rate 

of attrition, organizations with better prospects for sustained recruitment are able 

to carry out more attacks, at a higher frequency, and wage more persistent terrorist 

campaigns. Thus, organizations who seek to continue violence on behalf of ethnic 

group will find it difficult to recruit participants after political inclusion, as long as 

it satisfies a sufficient number of individuals in their audience. This should lead to 

a decline in the ability of the organization to maintain a high number of terrorist 

attacks. Indeed, Gurr (2000) argued that greater inclusion has promoted a waning 

of ethnic warfare, and Cederman et al. (2016) demonstrate more systematically 

that ethnic political inclusion appears to reduce the risk of ethnic conflict onset and 

promote conflict termination. 

 

7. Some Policy Oriented Advice/Recommendation 
In reacting to the inscrutable phenomenon of domestic terrorism, governments 

should reverse the cause of grievances by recourse to political inclusion. If 

political exclusion causes ethnic terrorism, it follows that promoting greater ethnic 

inclusion and democracy will, at least, reduce terrorist risks. We find that countries 

in which no ethnic populations are excluded from political power are significantly 

more likely to experience relative peace. They will likely be free from domestic 

terrorist attacks and from suffering from terrorist casualties. Moreover, Walsh and 

Piazza’s (2010) study produced robust findings, showing that countries with higher 

levels of human right protection experience less terrorism. Our models therefore 

include the measure of respect for physical integrity rights – the right not to be 

abused or harmed – used by Walsh and Piazza (2010). Our expectation is that it 

will be a negative predictor of terrorism because promotion of physical integrity 

will reduce the level of abuse and thus produce fewer grievances. Again, Choi 

(2010) demonstrates that when an independent judiciary with fair-minded judges 

and police officers is present in a rule of law society, the risk of terrorism is small. 

Similarly, Findley and Young (2011) posit that independent judiciaries make 

government commitments seem more credible, thereby dis-incentivizing the use of 

terrorism. Consistent with these findings, we expect that the presence (or absence) 

of an independent judiciary is likely to decrease (or increase) the frequency of 

terrorist incidents. 

Several recent studies also consider the effects of poverty and economic 

development on terrorism (e.g., Li, 2005). When a large percentage of a given 

country’s population lives below the poverty line, terrorist groups may find it 

easier to recruit the disgruntled. People whose basic needs, such as clean water, 

nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter, are not fulfilled find fault 

with those who discriminate against their social welfare, namely the government 

and the rich. For this reason, economic development is viewed as an important 

factor for the control of terrorism. Furthermore, countries with large populations 

often find it difficult to provide adequate levels of security measures, resulting in 

greater vulnerability to terrorist plots and attacks (Eyerman, 1998). In fact, Savun 



Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

17 

 

and Philips (2009) find evidence that highly populated countries experience more 

domestic terrorist incidents. With this in mind, the population variable is projected 

to increase the rate of terrorism due to the relative difficulty of successfully 

policing a large population. The more all the citizens are given free access to 

political power, however, the less vulnerable to domestic terrorism a populated 

country will be. 

 

8. Conclusion 

While quantitative research in academic and policy circles has examined 

transnational terrorism and civil and interstate wars, research on the causes of 

domestic terrorism is severely lacking. Indeed, a serious limitation to the 

development of terrorism literature thus far has been the lack of domestic terrorism 

data and the absence of a probe into the connection between political grievances 

and domestic terrorism. This has slowed the accumulation of required knowledge 

regarding the relationships between domestic-level political phenomena (e.g. the 

degree of inclusiveness of the political system of a country) and political violence. 

Given its destructive impact on the daily functioning of human life and on national 

economies, a deeper probe of domestic terrorism is necessary. This study is one of 

the philosophical studies to conceptualize political exclusion as a root cause of 

domestic terrorism, and as such, it will hopefully serve as a stepping stone towards 

increased research interest in the neglected area of domestic terrorism and its 

motivations. 

Questions of nationalism, sectarianism, ethnic and communal violence, and 

the collapse of states came to dominate academic analysis and political debates. 

The question of the possibility of a meaningful nation, in which all citizens with 

common national identity that overcome regional, ethnic, religious, clan, and other 

tensions, becomes critical. We must look back to the idea of African identity as 

being-with and see in it the deliberate construction of nationalist narrative. The 

European’s underpinnings of the idea of communal living are perhaps less 

important than the call for nation building and the humanitarian agenda for justice 

and peace the African heritage promises. 

This study has demonstrated that, irrespective of the measure of terrorism 

and estimation method, ethno-political exclusion fuels domestic terrorism. When 

people are excluded from state power due to their ethnic background, they are 

more likely to resort to domestic terrorism in an effort to solve issues and avenge 

grievances. Moreover, this study finds that the size of the politically excluded 

ethnic population is a more consistent predictor of patterns of domestic terrorism 

than the general level of political participation in a country or the degree of 

economic discrimination suffered by ethnic minorities. The results of this study 

suggests that ethnic group political exclusion is a key element in the generation of 

domestic terrorism and, therefore, policies aimed at fostering inclusiveness could 

be a useful counterterrorism tool. 



                                                                       Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

18 

 

 

References 
Arendt, Hanna. (1958). The Origin of Totalitarianism. Cleveland: The World 

Publishing. 

Bauhn, Per. (1989). Ethical Aspects of Political Terrorism: The Sacrificing of the 

Innocent. Lund: Lund University Press. 

Cederman, L.E, Hug, S., et al. (2016). “Territorial Autonomy in the Shadow of 

Conflict: Too Little, Too Late?” American Political Science Review 109(2), 

pp.354-370. 

Chenowet, Erica. (2010). “Domestic Competition and Terrorist Activity.” Journal 

of Politics 72(1), pp.16-30. 

Choi, Seung-Whan. (2010). “Fighting terrorism through the Rule of Law?” 

Journal of Conflict Resolution 54(6), pp.940-966. 

Choi, Seung-Whan & James A. Piazza. (2016). “Ethnic Groups, Political 

Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism,” Defence and Peace Economics, 8(3), 

pp.347-377. 

DeLuca, Tom. (1995). The Two Faces of Political Apathy. Philadelphia: Temple 

University Press. 

Crenshaw, Martha.  (1981). “The Causes of Terrorism.” Comparative Politics 

13(4), pp.379-399. 

Ergil, Dogu. (2000). “The Kurdish Question in Turkey.”  Journal of Democracy 

11(3), pp.122-135. 

Eyerman, Joe. (1998). “Terrorism and Democratic States.” International 

Interactions 24(2), pp.151-170. 

Findley, Michael G. and Joseph K. Young. (2011). “Terrorism, Democracy, and 

Credible Commitments.” International Studies Quarterly 55(2), pp357-

378. 

_________. (2012). “Terrorism and Civil War: A Spatial and Temporal Approach 

to a Conceptual Problem.” Perspective on Politics 10(2), pp.285-305. 

Fox, Jonathan. (1999). “The Influence of Religious Legitimacy on Grievance 

Formation by Ethno-Religious Minorities.” Journal of Peace Research 

36(3), pp.289-307. 

Gleditsch, K.S. & Polo, S.M.T. (?). “Ethnic Inclusion, Democracy, and 

Terrorism.” https://core.ac.uk. Accessed May 22, 2020. 

Goodwin, Jef. (2006). “A Theory of Categorical Terrorism.” Social Forces 84(4), 

pp.2027-2046. 

Gurr, Ted Robert. (1994). Peoples against State: Ethno-political Conflict and the 

Changing World System.” International Studies Quarterly 38(3), pp.347-

377. 

________. (2000). People versus State. Washington: United States Institute of 

Peace Press. 

Juergensmeyer, Mark. (1993). The New Cold War? Berkeley: University of 

California Press. 

Kaufman, Chaim. (1998). “Possible and Impossible Solutions to ethnic Civil 

Wars.” International Security 20(4), pp.26-76. 

https://core.ac.uk/


Ezebuilo                                                    Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism in … 

19 

 

Laqueur, Walter. (1999). The New Terrorism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Li, Quan. (2005). “Does Democracy Promote or Reduce Transnational Terrorist 

Incidents?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(2), pp.278-297. 

Nwabunka, J. (2006). The Political economy of Terrorism. Ibadan: University 

Press. 

Nyerere, J.K. Ujamaa: The Basis of African Socialism,” in Ujamaa: Essays on 

Socialism. Julius K. Nyerere (ed.). (1968). Dar es Salaam: Oxford 

University Press, in J.K. Nyerere (ed,) Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism, (Dar 

es Salaam: Oxford University Press. 

Piazza, James A. (2008). “Incubators of Terror.” International Studies Quarterly 

52(3), pp.159-488. 

_________. (2011). “Poverty, Minority Economic discrimination and Domestic 

Terrorism.” Journal of Peace Research 48(3), pp.339-353. 

_________. (2012). “Types of Minority Discrimination and terrorism.” Conflict 

Management and Peace Science 29(5), pp.521-546. 

Powell, G. Bingham. (1982). Contemporary Democracies. Cambridge: Harvard 

University Press. 

_________. (2000). “The Effects of Religious Discrimination on Ethno-Religious 

Protest and Rebellion.” Journal of Conflict Studies 20(2), pp.1-26. 

Rapoport, David C. (1991). “Some General Observations on Religion and 

Violence.” Terrorism and Political Violence 3(3), pp.127-134. 

Regan, Patrick M. and Daniel Norton. (2005). “Greed, Grievance, and 

Mobilization in Civil Wars.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(3), pp.319-

336. 

Savun, Burcu and Brian J. Philips. (2009). “Democracy, Foreign Policy, and 

Terrorism.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53(6), pp.878-904. 

Sayu Bhojwani, (2015). “Building Inclusive Cities.” 

https://www.citiesofmigration.ca/building-inclusive-cities/political-

inclusion/ 

Seung-Whan Choi & James A. Piazza, “Ethnic Groups, Political Exclusion and 

Domestic Terrorism,” Defence and Peace Economics, 2014. 

Walsh, James I. and James A. Piazza. (2010). “Why Respecting Physical Intergrity 

Rights Reduces Terrorism.”  Comparative Political Studies 43(4), pp.551-

577. 

Whitaker, David. (2001). The Terrorism Reader. New York: Rutledge. 

 

http://www.citiesofmigration.ca/building-inclusive-cities/political-inclusion/
http://www.citiesofmigration.ca/building-inclusive-cities/political-inclusion/

