I mean, it’s usually used to undermine a cause by killing their leaders, but their death can also cause them to become a martyr and get even more support. Which is generally true for the majority of assassinations?
Why I asked? Because recent events in Ecuador got me wondering.
From my limited sample size, they don’t help. But they don’t help the cause of the assassin either.
Paradoxically, the winner seems to be the status quo as society clamps down on the people around the assassin, and mainstreams the victim as part of the grieving process.
winner seems to be the status quo
The house always wins
Well then, when the assassin is doing so in order to preserve some status quo, they win.
Example: MLK. Killing him did a great job of preventing a very very very charismatic leader from bringing white and black people together against their corporate overlords.
Another example is the infiltration and sabotage of OWS.
deleted by creator
It depends on the context and the motivation. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, for instance, I’d argue was a success – it halted any momentum the reconciliation movement had at the time, and led to the situation we’re in today. Would talks have broken down anyway? Who’s to say.
By contrast, the assassination of JFK, though the purpose is unknown, allowed Johnson to galvanise his party in support of a raft of measures.
There is no question that the assassination of Rabin was a “success”. The assassin had a political objective that was met completely and the politicians that were obviously, intentionally inciting violence (in a plausibly deniable way of course) are in control of the government.
True; my only question is whether it was inevitable that peace talks would have broken down anyway, and all the assassination did was slightly hasten the collapse. It’s like the question of whether the assassination of Ferdinand caused WWI. No-one would argue that it wasn’t the trigger, but in the counterfactual case tensions were so high that a conflict was really inevitable.
Asking for a friend?
Yea, my friend asked me to ask on Lemmy if what he did in Ecuador was a bad decision
/s
Depends how strong the movement really is. It can produce a martyr or it can produce a chilling effect. Some assassinations aren’t even of overly successful movements.
I remember reading somewhere that historicity most political assassinations where mainly used to create chaos and almost never done to a direct opponent, but mainly to stir up other groups.
Not sure if that is how it works today.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Usually such an assassination hurts a lot, and it also hurts their cause a lot.
In rare cases, a kinda martyr effect happens, then it helps their cause. But there are preconditions: the cause must be well known, and it needs many supporters already. One (or some) of them must be able to take a new leadership position. And they must be able to withstand the fear of more assassinations.
Depends honestly.
Japans recent assassination actually managed to help the cause of the assassin. https://youtu.be/wFn6gWYMDpo
If it is of a opposition candidate, rarely does a new candidate of similar policy emerge that can’t take his place. This it certainly can help a sitting president/government. If it is of a government official or person sitting in power, often that results in chaos and worse outcomes. At least in the short term.
I can’t think of too many assassinations that resulted in a better situation. Even in the cases where the leaders deserved to be removed from power, often those that are violent enough to carry it out, regardless of their good intentions, succumb to their extreme ideology and are no better.
Not a historian, but from what history I know, it generally depends on the momentum of the person who was assassinated.
If the assassinee is both a) popular and b) not a force in the status quo, then I would say that generally assassination halts their platform.
If the assassinee is popular, and at work in the status quo, it only serves to make their platform more visible and therefore generally stronger.
One example I can think of of the first situation are the Roman Gracchi, who were populists during the late Roman republic. Assassination of two successive ‘Brothers of the People’ led to a complete rout of their platform - the Lex Agraria.
There are many examples of the second situation - MLK jr. is an easy one. The platform of MLK jr. had already come to be accepted in the nation’s consciousness as right - it is only the logical conclusion of the cessation of legal slavery some 100 years prior. Therefore, when he was assassinated, it only served to justify the directive of the nation.
I’m certainly open to examples exploring exceptions to the two cases provided, as well. I think it’s an interesting topic.
They can definitely hurt the cause of the assassinated 1 there dead 2 they can force the movement under ground by taking away its leadership
For example?
the assassination of Alexander the second backfired completely.
deleted by creator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr
Since you’re asking which is generally true: I think most victims of political assassination aren’t Martyrs and just disappear. Think of all of the victims of the CCP, the Nazis… All the other genocides in history… There are a few hundred high profile martyrs and several million dead without a wikipedia article and without having changed history around. This is probably the sad truth for the majority of cases.
