By Mr. Maverick

From the 1881 assassination of the Russian Tsar Alexander II by dynamite to the Hamas’s horrific attack on October 7, it is clear that the capabilities of terrorist actors have grown exponentially.

In his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” However, in 2024, that seems to be far from being the case. The large proliferation of technology and power has enhanced significantly the capacity of any non-state actor to pull strength and wreak havoc.

States no longer have the monopoly on gathering the resources needed to project power and uphold narratives. Technological advances have disproportionately benefited terrorist groups and non-state actors in general. From the invention of dynamite and the AK-47 in 1947, to satellite television and the revolution of social media, advancements in technology have narrowed the divide between nation-states and terrorist organizations, enabling non-state groups to engage in activities that closely resemble the operations of sovereign nations. On top of that, non-state actors and terrorist groups in particular enjoy another crucial advantage, which is the element of surprise.

In our information age, it would not be farfetched to state that in any war-like scenario, the best “story” wins. To put it differently, having the soundest and most compelling narrative is essential to gather international support and legitimize your actions. Social media apps such as Telegram have allowed terrorists to magnify the impact of their actions and narratives, enabling the recruitment of new members and the spread of misinformation. The effectiveness of such endeavors has been demonstrated in the case of the Israel-Hamas war. In late October, The New York Times admitted that its initial coverage of an explosion at a Gaza City hospital a few days prior had relied excessively on statements from Hamas government officials, who claimed that an Israeli airstrike was responsible.

The implications for global security and stability are clear as a bell. The proliferation of power, as described above, sets forth the need for the re-evaluation of all states’ national security doctrines, rendering a paradigm shift inevitable. In the context of this hectic search for security, a very characteristic quote keeps coming up. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It is safe to say that anyone who was born in the 18th century would agree. But is that the case in 2024? Or should the words liberty and safety be the other way around? Which value, between security and liberty, will prevail in our “social contract” in the near future? It all remains to be seen.