Political Violence in Latin America. A Cross-Case Comparison of the Urban Insurgency Campaigns of Montoneros, M-19, and FSLN in a Historical Perspective

The investigation reconstructs and examines the processes of escalation and de-escalation of political violence in internal conflicts in Latin America. The study analyses and compares the urban insurgent campaigns of the Argentinean Montoneros, the Colombian Movement 19 April (M-19) and the Nicaraguan Sandinist National Liberation Front (FSLN) to point out the processes that explain the specific conflict developments and endings. In comparison to the mainstream research focus, this study focuses on examining the middle-phase of internal conflicts and looks especially into the interactions of the central conflict actors. Literature on political violence in Latin America focuses on insurgency rather than terrorism. This research, however, employs the analytical concept of terrorism to study political violence. Terrorism, in this approach, is understood as a strategy of irregular warfare in its own right similar to insurgency, and as an act. This approach permits to focus on the act and not the actor and to deal with the variety of violent political actors in the region, including insurgent organizations and the state. Additional, the investigation proposes a triangular model of interaction to explain the dynamic in which political violence develops in social revolutionary conflicts. Political violence in such conflicts is largely the product of the triangular interaction between state and insurgent forces and the civil society, or “social audience”. In this triangular interaction, the social audience plays the decisive role for the development and outcome of the conflicts. This role, however, converts the social audience in the central target of state and insurgent activities, as both violent actors try to shape the behavior of the larger social environment. The study discusses the influence of national and international factors on the conflict development, such as the Cold War, the regime type and economic inequalities. Furthermore, it depicts forms of insurgent organization of opposition forces, as well as different types of regime and insurgent violence, and examines their impacts on the conflict development. Chances and limits of peaceful conflict solutions are discussed as well. The study finds that social revolutionary conflicts were essentially of a political nature; violence erupted because of a lack of political opportunity in the three case studies. Insurgent and regime violence differed in its aim and magnitude. Both insurgents and regimes employed violence to influence the behavior of the social audience to the conflict. While insurgents tried to mobilize opposition against the state, the regimes employed (massive) force to avoid any challenge from below. The effects of the violent acts differed according to the specific type of violence and the socio-political environment. However, it was not the violent act itself but the position civil society took towards the internal conflicts that was pivotal to the development of the internal conflicts. In short, the study points out that political violence in social revolutionary conflicts is largely a product of the coercive influences of the state and insurgent forces on the social audience, while the development of the conflict depends on the position of the social audience takes towards the struggles.