Description
In counterterrorism campaigns, when do democratic states resort to torture and when do they refrain from violating this fundamental human right? This paper examines how public debate – and public silence – contribute to enabling or constraining states from getting involved in torture. Drawing on the literatures on ‘rhetorical coercion’ and ‘shaming’, I outline how international human rights bodies and domestic critics have sought to shame Spain and the UK for their involvement in torture in recent decades. The Spanish government’s response was to use what I call ‘reverse-shaming’ to shun and discredit their accusers in an attempt to shut down public debate on the issue. This enabled the authorities to torture or mistreat suspected Basque militants for decades after Spain became a democracy. By contrast, the British government and its critics engaged in public contestation in which they constructed rival narratives concerning the effects of coercive interrogation. While the UK government made rhetorical manoeuvres which enabled it to continue its involvement in torture, the presence of this public debate was important for shifting the government’s position on some aspects of the issue and significantly reducing Britain’s involvement in torture over time. Based on a systematic discourse analysis of key sources in these two cases, this project aims to contribute to our understanding of the conditions under which democratic states may be induced to respect human rights.
