British diagnosis may not cure the disease [THE NATIONAL]
July 23, 2015
It is difficult for western politicians to ignore the issue of radical groups such as ISIL and Al Qaeda. There are other issues with dire security considerations – generational ones, like climate change. But radical extremism has an acute effect on societies in terms of the immediate threat and community cohesion. Western governments have to get these issues right, without exacerbating the number of problems they will have to contend with in the future.
This week, British prime minister David Cameron spoke more extensively than he has so far on extremism. In truth, it was probably the most expansive speech by any European politician in recent years on the topic. It elicited a mixed response from the British public.
There were some bizarre reactions that ought to be noted. In The Daily Telegraph, a conservative-leaning newspaper, one writer declared that “those who say Islam is not the issue miss the point”, adding that “Islam provides an impenetrable ethical and cultural carapace that repels liberal ideas".
It is one thing to argue that religions have specific world views that may not always see eye to eye with certain interpretations of contemporary liberalism, quite another to say it repels liberal ideas. For example, the new leader of the British political party, the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, who is a practising Christian, found it publicly difficult to explain his personal moral position on homosexuality as a sin, for example.
Religions operate within certain ethical universes, sometimes clashing with each other, or with secular notions. But to bring that up as necessarily a pathway to extremism is woefully unfortunate. It would make Mr Farron suspect as well.
In contrast, Mr Cameron made it clear that his comments related to “Islamist extremism” and "not Islam the religion”. He pointed out “what a profound contribution Muslims from all backgrounds and denominations are making in every sphere of our society, proud to be both British and Muslim, without conflict or contradiction”.
But regrettably, it appears that some forces in British society are keen to construct conflict and create contradiction because they see, in Islam, an intrinsic enemy. Responsible politicians need to be constantly clear that such an approach is at odds with British interests.
If the speech was meant to inculcate trust and encourage greater engagement between Muslim communities and the state, the initial reaction from Muslim community activists – generally negative – was not particularly promising. Concerns have already been raised both within and outside Muslim communities about the government’s Prevent programme. It now even involves educationalists in scrutinising students for signs of extremism according to unclear definitions.
Failing to properly address and allay those concerns was a missed opportunity – one that, quite frankly, Britain does not have the luxury to neglect.
Mr Cameron’s speech was nuanced in certain places. He distinguished between “Islamist extremism” and Islam, the former being against British values, and the latter not. It is undoubtedly the case that there are Islamists, as well as Islamists who are extreme, in addition to pious and non-pious Muslims who follow Islam but are not Islamist at all. Considering that the speech’s most critical audience on this point is going to be Muslim Britons themselves, a deeper elaboration on precisely what is meant by “Islamist extremism” would have been advisable. Otherwise, we may inadvertently place, for example, the Ennahda movement of Islamists in Tunisia, which has been the subject of justifiable praise for its constructive approach, in the same category as other Islamists who incite violence and sectarianism.
There will be those who argue that any focus at all on the ideological cosmos of extremists is immaterial and that ideas and ideology are more or less irrelevant because political and social circumstances are preponderant in explaining why people become extremists.
Mr Cameron, regrettably, took a similarly flawed view, but in the other direction. According to his speech, extremists are generally motivated by ideology, and their social contexts are largely unimportant. The reality is that both of these arguments miss the mark.
There is no uniform radicalisation process, which means a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy has to be far more specific. Different factors will matter differently to different individuals. For some, ideas are tremendously important; for others, less so. If we wish to minimise the threat of violence from extremists, we need to understand that there are many different pathways and not force our assumptions. In this matter, there are no short cuts and to deny that politics and ideology, along with other factors, play a role, is empirically specious.
The threat from radical extremism is a real one. It deserves to be tackled and warrants serious attention. But it is important we treat it with surgical precision. That’s not simply to avoid giving extremists the type of conflict they thrive on and to prevent them from recruiting yet more vulnerable individuals who perceive, even if wrongly, that they are close to being criminalised for their opinions. It’s also to ensure that once this conflict is overcome, we emerge from it with our principles intact, and the resilience of our societies is even stronger.
Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow in international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London, and the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC
On Twitter: @hahellyer
Source: The National
Photo Credit: World Economic Forum. CC.