The relationship of terrorism and democracy is complex. Research shows that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and that the nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.However, one study suggests that suicide terrorism may be an exception to this general rule. Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy- a state with a considerable degree of political freedom. The study suggests that terrorists were rewarded by concessions during the 80s and 90s for such attacks which increased their frequency.
Examples of "terrorism" (insurgency) in nondemocracies include ETA under Francisco Franco, the Shining path under Alberto Fujimori, the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Another the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders.
While a nation espousing democratic ideology may claim a sense of legitimacy or higher moral ground than regimes that promote terrorism, any act of terrorism within the former creates a dilemma for the democratic state. On one hand, a state that prides itself in its tolerance of peaceful demonstration may choose to approach the problem of terrorism in ways outlined by its constitution; this may render that state ineffective in dealing with the problem, which could reflect upon its citizens a sense of impotency in a time of crisis. On the other hand, should that same terrorized state go above its constitution to deal with the problem, the very notion of democracy itself pales in meaning. This, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to deligitimize democracy
