| Summary/Abstract |
The article responds to criticisms raised by Matthijs Bogaards. While he makes a number of valid methodological points, it is maintained that the Qvortrup–Lijphart Model of Domestic Terrorism remains paradigmatic. Part of the criticism seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the requirement that causal theories should be as parsimonious as possible. Further, Bogaards does not provide an alternative that both accounts for the occurrences explained by the model as well as the issues that were explained by it (as is required by falsificationist methodological rules). In short, the theory that institutions can contribute to limiting the occurrence of domestic terrorism remains strong, at least in developed capitalist societies. There is no viable alternative; opportunities for democratic engagement are a potent force against political violence.
|