The Mystery of the Political Assassin

"As political acts go, an assassination is more like a natural disaster than a controlled explosion: it will wreak havoc, it will often change the course of history, but its perpetrators can never know in what direction. When Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in 1914, his objective was South Slavic independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire; what he got was the First World War and the slaughter of millions."

"Princip established a new template: even if the outcome of an assassination proved chaotic, the intention behind it generally was not. The assassin had become a rational figure, precise in his targeting, legibly motivated, and, crucially, often part of a wider movement or conspiracy to topple those in power. Though we usually hear about Princip alone, he acted along with a seven-man assassination squad, tied to a much larger underground network."

Assassinations often act like natural disasters, causing widespread, unpredictable upheaval while perpetrators cannot foresee resulting directions. Some killings pursue specific political aims but produce vastly different outcomes, exemplified by Gavrilo Princip’s 1914 shooting that sought South Slavic independence yet precipitated the First World War. Other killings can accomplish intended political effects, as in the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which derailed the Oslo peace process. Since 1914, assassination evolved toward organized, rational actors embedded in broader movements or conspiracies. Modern assassins frequently operate as precise, networked agents, and collective meanings often eclipse individual intentions.

Read at The New Yorker