Safe and free E-Book

Council of Europe

• Herausgeber: Council of Europe
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 314

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

How does democratic security interact with democracy, human rights and the rule of law? How can the Council of Europe help its member states guarantee security for citizens through their commitment to democratic norms? The European continent is facing today a democratic crisis and fresh impetus is required to enhance democratic security. As the most comprehensive pan-European organisation, the Council of Europe is uniquely placed to play a substantial role in this regard, thanks both to its specific mandate and its vast expertise in the field. In partnership with the Strasbourg-based National School of Administration (ENA) the Council of Europe organised a series of debates providing an intellectual framework to examine the challenges facing democratic security. Eminent personalities from politics, civil society and the academic world shared their views, and their contributions are collected in this publication.

Leseprobe

 

SAFE AND FREE

 

Democratic security

and human rights

 

Democratic security debates

at the Council of Europe 2015-2017

 

Preface by Thorbjørn Jagland

Ismail Serageldin

Alexey Venediktov

Gilles Kepel

Christiane Taubira

Rama Yade

David Lyon

Natan Sznaider

Ahmet Insel

Jan-Werner Müller

Wolfgang Ischinger

Matthew Feldman

Claire Wardle

Peter Neumann

 

Council of EuropeFacebook.com/CouncilOfEuropePublications

Contents

Click here to see the whole table of contents, or go on the « Table of contents » option of your eReader.

Preface

At the Council of Europe’s first summit in Vienna in 1993 our Organisation was tasked explicitly with strengthening democratic security on the continent. At that time, there was a great deal of optimism about how that might be achieved. Democracies in western Europe were stable. The fall of the Iron Curtain promised a new dawn for post-communist countries in the east. There was an expectation that a democratic Europe would rise, underpinned by shared values.

Today, the picture is more complex. Over the past 25 years there have been further episodes of ethnic enmity and violence and territorial occupation in Europe. Old tensions did not die with the fall of the Berlin Wall : rather, they lay dormant and can be awoken even now. Added to this, modern Europe is confronting the mutually reinforcing challenges of migration, extremism and populism, including within some Council of Europe member states. With fake news in circulation, the impartiality of the media in question and public surveillance on the rise, many citizens feel threatened, insecure and uncertain who or what they can trust.

While the picture has changed, the Council of Europe’s principles have not. We continue our work to uphold democracy, human rights and the rule of law – and the democratic security that comes with these. In order to do this, it is essential to facilitate discussion and generate ideas.

Co-organised with our long-standing partner, the French École Nationale d’Administration (ENA), our Debates on Democratic Security have done just that. Featuring eminent personalities from academia, politics and civil society, these conversations have examined key facets of the contemporary debate. Among the topics covered, the five pillars of democratic security have been prominent : efficient and independent judiciaries ; freedom of expression ; vibrant civil society ; legitimate democratic institutions ; and inclusive societies. Together, these are the solid foundations upon which to build a stable and lasting peace and our speakers have given their thoughts on how to do so in the context of current challenges.

This publication contains a summary of the lectures that introduced and informed the 13 debates held at the Council of Europe between 2015 and 2017. It has been compiled with the intention of sharing a better understanding of the significance of democratic security and our hope that it can be delivered to the benefit of all citizens in Europe.

I thank all the distinguished experts involved for their outstanding contributions.

Thorbjørn Jagland

Secretary General

of the Council of Europe

A word from the ENA

In recent years, international relations have taken a turn for the worse : military interventions, civil war and unrest have fostered intolerance and confrontation. Combined with ongoing economic uncertainty, these security challenges have created fertile ground for nationalist and populist movements eager to exploit public anxiety and question the very foundations of democratic societies.

In such an uneasy context, real progress towards good democratic governance, living together in diversity and reconciling security and fundamental freedoms is hard to achieve. Promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law therefore remains a crucial responsibility for Europe and the international community.

The French National School of Administration (ENA) is deeply attached to these ideals and places them at the very heart of its curriculum for civil servants in France and abroad. This is why the ENA is proud to partner with the Council of Europe in organising a cycle of high-level conferences dedicated to the concept of democratic security and fostering debates on its multiple facets and implications, including freedom of speech, populism, the independence of the judicial system, realpolitik, cosmopolitanism and the European project, freedom in the digital era, state security, human security and democratic security.

Our co-operation is founded upon the promotion of and respect for core European values. Indeed, Europe is first and foremost a union of people and shared values, defending peace, democracy and the rule of law. In Europe today we must work together if we are to successfully tackle the many challenges and threats that jeopardise the premises of freedom, equality and respect for human rights. Jean-Claude Juncker, as President of the European Commission, clearly illustrated this union when he stated that : “The Council of Europe and the European Union were products of the same idea, the same spirit and the same ambition. They mobilised the energy and commitment of the same founding fathers of Europe.”

The defence of European values goes hand in hand with a better understanding of the European project, and the ENA, as a school of applied learning, deciphers Europe through its training and capacity-building projects and its commitment to better equip civil servants and public administrations in addressing these emerging challenges.

Dauphinelle Clément

Director, European Affairs

École nationale d’administration

Editor’s note

We live in turbulent times. The European political and social model built in the aftermath of the Second World War, which has brought decades of peace and stability to the continent, is increasingly being challenged and undermined. Populism, offering false and dangerous responses to citizens’ often legitimate grievances, is gaining ground. In some countries, the stark reality of growing unemployment, marginalisation and insecurity has engendered an unexpected rise in extremism, racism and xenophobia, particularly among young people. In other countries, increased crackdowns on journalists and the media are seriously threatening the freedom of expression that is a vital aspect of our democracies, and human rights and liberties are being pushed aside under the pretext of enhancing security. Technological developments are constantly bringing new opportunities, but also raise questions to which we do not always have adequate responses. Trust in our national and European institutions and their capacity to respond effectively to numerous challenges, from security concerns to the economy, unemployment, managing migration flows and others, is in steep decline.

Today’s situation provides dramatic evidence of the link between democracy and security. With the rule of law, the protection of human rights and democratic institutions under pressure, threats to security are heightened and multiplied. The Council of Europe can – and must – play a central role in our collective response to these challenges. In order to do so, it needs to look critically at itself, its member states and the developments in its environment. This third series of debates, devoted to democratic security, was set up to stimulate this reflection. The aim was to examine the current thinking and the dynamics behind the concept of democratic security, to identify the main challenges and to explore how democratic security can strengthen peace and stability in Europe.

This publication contains lectures delivered by eminent personalities between 2015 and 2017 within the framework of the series of the Council of Europe Debates on Democratic Security.

Co-organised by the Council of Europe and the Strasbourg-based École Nationale d’Administration (ENA), the debates featured 13 distinguished speakers from the worlds of politics, academia and civil society. We were fortunate enough to welcome Ismail Serageldin, Alexey Venediktov, Gilles Kepel, Christiane Taubira, Rama Yade, David Lyon, Natan Sznaider, Ahmet Insel, Jan-Werner Müller, Wolfgang Ischinger, Matthew Feldman, Claire Wardle and Peter Neumann.

Their presentations offered rich perspectives and often stimulated heated exchanges. On each occasion, the speakers tackled the issues surrounding democratic security from a specific angle, sharing insights and interpretations based on their own professional experience or field of expertise. Throughout the cycle of debates, our exploration of the paradigms of democratic security mirrored important developments in current affairs, allowing discussions to be all the more topical and relevant.

Starting from the legal origins of democratic security, sociology professor and Holocaust expert Natan Sznaider retraces how human rights and collective responsibility came to be embodied in international law following the end of the Second World War. Whether one sees the Holocaust as the culmination of the history of anti-Semitism, as the apogee of the history of racism or as a crime against humanity, there is no denying that its occurrence paved the way for the legal encoding of human rights in the immediate post-war period. Europe’s collective memory of the Holocaust recalls the basis of the European Union (EU). If we want to excavate the original consciousness of cosmopolitanism that lies at the heart of the European project, it is the collective memory of the Holocaust and the ensuing Nuremberg trials that provide our clearest archive, for this was the first kind of legal system that went beyond the sovereignty of the nation state. According to Sznaider, only deliberately remembering these origins can help us overcome the wave of modern-day pessimism that surrounds the European idea.

No talk about democratic security can be carried out effectively without acknowledging the different nuances the term “security” itself can assume. Economist and political scientist Ahmet Insel tackles precisely this question in looking at the apparent paradoxes between state security, human security and democratic security, especially in societies with fragile democratic institutions. The underlying risk today is an obsessive securitisation of society : is the fact that security is constantly being discussed an indication that we are living in a new era of instability following the end of the Cold War and the advance of globalisation ? A worrying trend is starting to arise from this tendency to over-securitise, Insel argues, and it can be seen in the way that heightened security concerns are reinforcing new state measures of surveillance and are facilitating the abandonment of fundamental rights and liberties. Despite the legitimacy of security concerns, we must never allow them to corner us into overlooking our human rights and freedoms, he concludes.

The presence of a strong, efficient and independent judiciary is one of the pillars of democratic security. How, though, can such an efficient and independent judiciary be ensured ? This is the question at the core of the presentation delivered by Christiane Taubira, former French Minister of Justice. Providing the perspective of a true practitioner, Taubira addresses the main obstacles surrounding the effective functioning of a state’s judicial system, identifying access to justice and the fight against corruption as major challenges to tackle. Democratic security is guaranteed by allowing judges and lawyers enough room for manoeuvre to verify the upkeep of the law, and by ensuring that this is always kept separate from the control of the executive power. True justice can only be achieved if there is widespread trust among citizens in public institutions as guarantors of their rights. Hence, it is of fundamental importance to ensure the unquestionable ethics of judges and lawyers and to continue the fight against economic crimes and corruption within the system itself.

Democratic security also means protecting human rights, and Rama Yade, France’s former Secretary of State for Human Rights and for Sport, is well positioned to argue this. She speaks about the situation of human rights in Europe today, and of their coexistence with the requirements of democratic security, as well as of the impact that the rise of terrorist activities has had on their protection. Pursuing national interests and protecting human rights have sometimes been perceived as conflicting priorities, and the history of human rights is not one of a victorious march through time, but rather one of a daily battle, sometimes against tradition, often against the established order, and always against religious or cultural ignorance and prejudices. Yade ultimately concludes that while over the years enormous progress has been made in the establishment of an international legal framework assuring that the protection of human rights is taken seriously, we must not allow the current times of crisis to lessen our faith in democracies as the guardians of human rights.

Along with efficient and independent judiciaries, freedom of expression is also a basic tenet of democratic security. In his lecture on the importance of free and independent media, journalist and Chief Editor of the Echo of Moscow radio station, Alexey Venediktov, explains the risks that the digital age represents for the authenticity and reliability of the news and information we receive, as well as for the accountability of its authors. Whether intentional or not, misinformation can have harmful consequences for democratic security, as the line between misinformation and propaganda becomes progressively blurred. Turning to his own country, Venediktov sketches a bleak overview of the waning freedom of the media in present-day Russia, highlighting the increasingly important role of new online media and the threat to democratic security represented by the current levels of censorship and self-censorship of journalists.

Not straying too far from this subject, in her contribution Claire Wardle, Director of First Draft, tackles the challenges to freedom of expression posed by the calculated spread of “fake news”. Arguing that this term has been “weaponised” to undermine press freedom and is too simplistic to describe the complexity of the phenomenon, Wardle prefers to talk about an ecosystem of disinformation, misinformation and mal-information. Here, not only is false information spread, but genuine content is manipulated, misleading content is created and personal information is leaked for all to see, in a shift from private to public spaces. While fake news and hoaxes have always existed, the challenge today is coping with the ease and speed at which fabricated content is created and shared. The only solution to the issue, Wardle ultimately concludes, is to conduct proper research and foster co-operation between the different parties involved, so as to rebuild society’s trust in the quality of news, improve critical approaches to information and raise awareness about disinformation.

The shift from private spaces to public ones not only concerns the information ecosystem. In recent years – following shocking revelations about mass surveillance of citizens’ personal information by the state – the issue of data protection has come to the forefront of the political debate, reminding us that security is not only collective but also individual. David Lyon, Director of the Surveillance Studies Centre at Ontario’s Queen’s University, guides us in his lecture through a tour of our surveillance rights and freedoms in the age of digital modernity. Wondering whether the performative aspect of our digital behaviour has not unwittingly endorsed the establishment of a surveillance society, Lyon argues that we are often complicit in encouraging a state of surveillance in many ways. In this context, the key to safeguarding our rights lies in democratic participation : it is our own proactivity concerning cybersecurity and our own decision to submit complaints to data protection bodies that directly affects how far surveillance can go. Our activities contribute to the creation of a surveillance culture, but they can also contribute to its modification and redirection.

Maintaining the spotlight on the challenges of the digital age, Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador and current Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, argues that the coming of the digital era has brought with it transformative changes of both a positive and negative nature. While digital developments have allowed democracy to become more transparent, more accountable and more participatory, the rise of populist political forces can also be traced back to the same processes. The ubiquitous availability of social media and digital access to information is a double-edged sword, and the easy spread of fake news through the web shows how a lot of damage can be done with relatively few resources. Pointing to possibilities for addressing these challenges, Ischinger expresses his belief in the need for an institutional solution, and the creation of an institutional body to monitor the implementation, verification and revision of a convention regulating the cyberworld.

Arguably one of the biggest threats to our democratic security lies in the rise of violent extremism and radicalisation. Today, the terrorist threat comes not only from outside Europe but also from within, with many young Europeans rejecting the fundamental values of democracy and human rights and turning to extremist organisations in their quest for identity. Offering a rich analysis of the factors that contributed to the development of this situation, Ismail Serageldin, founder and director of the Egyptian Bibliotheca Alexandrina, explains what exactly pushes young Europeans to join the ranks of Daesh in Iraq and Syria. There is a rift, he argues, between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, with many young Muslims feeling alienated from mainstream societies, with few prospects and many of their grievances unaddressed. This resentment becomes a fertile ground for indoctrination and recruitment by extremists, who exploit the youngsters’need for a sense of affiliation and belonging. The key to preventing this from happening, Serageldin believes, lies in a change in the way religious, public and cultural discourse is built in Western countries. The teaching of different historical narratives and the creation of a cultural alliance on both sides of the Mediterranean could be a solution to defeating terrorism and ensuring democratic security.

The intense public debate around the threat of home-grown terrorism has also been sparked by the numerous attacks that have taken place on European soil over the past few years. In his presentation, Gilles Kepel, a leading expert in Islamic extremism, addresses the situation in Europe in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels in 2015 and 2016, as well as their impact on democratic security and respect for human rights and freedom. In a lecture that sketches the history of Salafism and jihadism in Europe, Kepel argues that radical Islam and Western elites are to blame for the creation of a fertile ground that gave rise to what he calls “a third-generation jihad”. The social, political and economic marginalisation of the young generation has led to an increasing rejection of common democratic values, which in turn has encouraged the spread of home-grown terrorism. According to Kepel, the solution to the issue is to be found in a better historical understanding of Islam, in abandoning all Islamophobic prejudices and in focusing on building inclusive, tolerant societies.

In the context of jihadist terrorism, Peter Neumann deconstructs five common myths surrounding radicalisation and disengagement to offer a more nuanced understanding of the situation in Europe. In questioning the factors that lead people to radicalise, he widens the discussion from a single-factor approach to one which examines the profile, social status, friendship and kinship ties of the young people who turn to terrorism. Drawing on his own research, he cautions that the role of the internet must not be overstated ; people are very rarely radicalised online, even if the story of their radicalisation is often played out online. Neumann also explores the nature of the relationship between Islam and Salafi jihadism by drawing analogies with national identities, concluding that while they jihadism can be located on the spectrum of Islam, it does not represent Islam. Lastly, he offers an assessment of current deradicalisation and disengagement programmes in Europe.

Over the past two years, populism has been the word on the tip of everyone’s tongue, seen, alongside terrorism, as one of the most pressing concerns. But what exactly is populism, and what dangers does it entail for democracy ? Jan-Werner Müller, a leading expert on the topic, tries to provide answers to these questions in his presentation. Offering an in-depth analysis of the nature and dynamics of populism, Müller focuses on how populists gain access to power. Once – and if – this happens, their destabilising attitude has negative impacts on the public debate, democracy, the plurality of political systems and, in the long term, basic human rights and freedoms. As to how populist discourse can be effectively defused, Müller argues that there is no straightforward solution, but stresses that citizens have an important role to play in reaching out to those who have different opinions and in fostering constructive debate.

Running parallel to populism, another current challenge to our democracies comes from the revival and spread of far-right parties in Europe. Sketching out the history of the rise of the far right, Matthew Feldman, a leading expert on fascist ideology and the contemporary far right, argues that far-right movements today have managed to establish themselves in the mainstream political arena as a result of a reshaping of their outward appearances. Adopting what he describes as “doublespeak”, far-right parties have reshaped their “front-stage” appearance under the guise of moderation and reform while maintaining a“backstage”of extreme-right activism. It is precisely this revamp that has allowed them to become mainstream. The far right poses a threat to the long-term security of our liberal democracies, precisely because it tries to erode their foundations : tolerance, inclusiveness and human rights. In these delicate times, Feldman concludes, we need to remind ourselves that we are the guardians of such foundations, and should reaffirm our liberal democratic values with pride in the face of potential attacks from within.

Matjaž Gruden

Director of Policy Planning

Council of Europe

Chapter 1On the challenges of democratic security

Debateheld on 1 June 2015

Ismail Serageldin

Director of Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt

The issues that inform how to provide security while protecting the human rights of citizens and the democratic freedoms we have come to cherish and take for granted are among the most important issues of our time.

Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as having said something along the lines of : “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. Franklin’s admonition is a good one, yet every society – especially in times of war or imminent danger – will agree to special limitations on its liberty in order to secure more security for its citizens. To promote security while protecting our freedoms and maintaining our democratic structures is the challenge in many places today.

All democratic societies that value the liberties of their citizens are content to declare that a crime is an act, not a thought, and is only punished after the fact, and indeed such societies have constructed elaborate legal and judicial procedures to ensure that police and prosecutors actually punish the guilty party after having proven that they are responsible “beyond reasonable doubt”. They prefer to let a guilty party go free than to incarcerate an innocent person.

Terrorism poses a different challenge. The public wants the government to prevent the act of terror from occurring. To prevent an act from happening requires broadened surveillance and granting the police powers to act on suspicions of conspiracy rather than waiting until the act of terror has been executed and subsequently capturing the guilty party. That sets us on a dangerous path, where our liberties are at risk. Recall the US “Patriot Act”, passed after 9 September 2001, which gave the government powers to fight a “War on Terror” and led to Guantanamo, preventative detention, torture and systematic murder by drone attacks.

Europe is now increasingly facing a terrorist threat as the cleavage in the global system between the Muslim world and others, especially the West, widens ; and equally as Muslim communities grow within Western societies, where Islam is rapidly becoming the second most practised religion. Many of the young people in these societies are alienated from the mainstream, leaving them feeling marginalised and excluded, and are thus becoming prime targets for recruitment into terrorist activity by local or international terrorists.

Globally, the rhetoric of media-enhanced Muslim discourse has undergone a radicalisation. This rhetoric now promotes exclusion and violence, wreaking devastation in predominantly Muslim societies and increasing its attractiveness to the alienated youth of Europe.

So how does a society retain its democratic character when it has to prevent terrorism and it suspects a number of its citizens of complicity with terrorists ? By emphasising pluralism and inclusion, by presenting a coherent historical narrative that gives the ancestors of all the citizens of Europe something to feel proud of and a chance to recognise themselves in the magnificent enterprise that is the construction of Europe.

The pursuit of democratic security is not only feasible, but necessary. In the end, we have to agree with Karl Popper who so presciently observed over half a century ago :

The alleged clash between freedom and security… turns out to be a chimera. For there is no freedom if it is not secured by the state ; and conversely, only a state which is controlled by the free citizens can offer them any reasonable security.

For the purpose of this lecture several themes need to be covered. First, we must mention the tensions in this changing world, because Europe remains part of an increasingly globalised but fraying world order. Second, we must note that confronting terrorism is different from confronting war and regular crime – with the exception of major drug cartels and arms trafficking rings, which often overlap with terrorist activities. Third, we must touch on what is happening in the Muslim world more generally, and the impact of this on the Muslim communities of Europe. Fourth, we must review the mechanisms of extremism and violence and how to confront them. Fifth, we must address the mounting dangers of populist anti-Muslim right-wing political extremism in Europe. And sixth, this lecture will be wrapped up by looking at the alliance that we can create on both sides of the Mediterranean to confront the mounting threats of extremism and violence.

THUMBNAIL SKETCHES OF A CHANGING WORLD

These are perilous times. The old world order is collapsing before our eyes. A new world order remains tantalisingly beyond our reach. But that is another story for another day.

Within the Middle East and beyond, the Arab and Muslim worlds are in profound crisis. The radicalisation of youth, the collapse of governments and the appearance of extremist movements garbed in religious rhetoric performing the most horrific acts of barbarism are nightmares that go beyond our wildest imagination. Millions of refugees have been driven from their homes by daily occurrences of horror in conflict zones, where fanatics have taken over and given up on any semblance of human decency ; or worse : they relish their abandonment of the simplest norms of human conduct. They do not have any pretence of civilised behaviour, as they roam in the wreckage of failed states and civil wars.

In the Mediterranean, we remain powerless and frozen as desperate refugees risk – and lose – their lives in a rush towards the glittering promise of Europe. They are not just seeking better economic opportunities ; they are also fleeing from the collapsing countries which were once their homes.

Putting an end to these situations requires extraordinary skill and wisdom. But perhaps nowhere more so than in Europe, where societies have to adapt to having significant Muslim minorities in their midst. But Europe has achieved its enormous past successes by following visionaries such as Monet and Schuman. The old continent’s European Union rose like a phoenix from the bloodbath of the Second World War. A tangled web of former enemies became allies, a community of nations. It succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. Within a generation, young people from France and Germany could no longer imagine their countries ever going to war.

Today that vision has stalled. The economic crisis and the rising tide of migrants, as well as the growth of alienated, mostly Muslim, minorities within the countries of the EU, are posing new problems. One of the most fundamental challenges is ensuring security in a democratic society.

TERRORISM, SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY

Terrorist acts by extremist groups have become part of our contemporary world.

Confronting terrorism is different from war and different from confronting regular crime – with the possible exception of major drug cartels and arms trafficking rings, which often overlap with terrorist activities.

The religious fanatics who are now causing such mayhem have also added another dimension. Consider the ideological fervour of the suicide bomber. It is far harder to guard against a killer who kills himself with his victims than it is to guard against one who is planning to escape the scene of the crime. This phenomenon needs tackling at the point of the indoctrination and recruitment that feeds the terrorist ranks, as much as at the stage of the attempted terrorist acts.

Why terrorism is different from war

In the wake of the horrendous attacks of 11 September 2001, the political response of the United States Government was to wage a “War on Terror” and to argue that terrorists were enemy combatants, not subject to normal criminal legal procedures. This political terminology, which attempted to find parallels between the treatment of prisoners of war from other wars and terrorists, was both tortuous and faulty.

For one thing, while enemy soldiers captured in a battlefield of conventional war do not normally deny their affiliation (they even declare it by wearing military uniform), the difficulty of distinguishing between a terrorist and an innocent bystander is more akin to distinguishing between a criminal and a member of the public as a whole.

For another, conventional wars are expected to have logical ends, with the opposing army being vanquished or a peace being negotiated between the parties, usually involving an exchange of prisoners. What form would the end of the war on terror take ? With whom would such an ending be negotiated and signed ? In the absence of clarity on such issues, would this result in prisoners being held indefinitely without trial ? How would such an outcome be in any way compatible with any definition of the rule of law and of democratic governance ?

Human rights (such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to petition, the right to strike, the right to privacy, the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.) may be at risk. The presumption of innocence and the right to refrain from self-incrimination – and the right of habeas corpus in the “Anglo-Saxon”system – are equally fundamental rights that must consistently be protected.

Advocates of passing special laws on terrorism argue the need to move swiftly under conditions of imperfect knowledge, plagued by the fear of the consequences of delayed action. Opponents would agree to some forms of expanded surveillance (under strict judicial review and control), plus extraterritorial co-operation of the investigative, policing and prosecutorial powers of various governments. But ultimately it is through cultural confrontation – defeating extremist ideas with ideas of openness and pluralism – that terrorism shall be defeated.

ON BEING A MUSLIM TODAY

Clearly, however, there is a rift between Muslims and non-Muslims almost everywhere in the world today. And even though the vast majority of the 1400 million Muslims in the world are peaceful, law-abiding citizens, there has undoubtedly been – in the last 30 to 40 years or so – the development of a strong current of religious fanaticism. This current is bigoted and exclusionary, and has shifted the centre of gravity of Muslim communities to a more conservative position. What is more, in the same period we have seen militants take over established movements and sects, and the resurgence of an ever more pronounced Sunni/Shia split. But confronting these issues will require action on many levels. Returning the centre of gravity towards the more liberal, open and rational Islam of old requires us to confront ideas with ideas and to change the historical narrative and the public discourse on religion in our societies. So, let us mention a few words about what is happening in the Muslim world generally and, more specifically, its impact on the Muslim communities of Europe.

In the Muslim-majority countries

The enormous resentment that Muslims feel towards the West generally, and the US particularly, is neither fully understood nor appreciated in the West.

This resentment runs deep. It is accompanied by a feeling of victimisation that calls on memories from the crusades to colonialism. This feeling has been exacerbated by perceived Western double standards in treating human rights issues in Palestine and the continued Israeli occupation of territories conquered in 1967. More recently, in the post-9/11 world, the US military action in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq have had a devastating effect by expanding the gulf that separates the predominantly Muslim world from the US and the West.

In addition, there is in some Arab and Muslim countries a deep sense of frustration at what they perceive to be the inability of their governments to respond to their aspirations or to stand up to the West. This resentment and deep sense of grievance has been accumulating like a dangerous store of combustible fuels. Any spark, no matter how small (like the cartoons in 2005/2006, published in the Conservative Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, which inter alia portrayed the Prophet as terrorist), can touch the accumulated fuels and trigger an explosion of anger, causing fire, literally and metaphorically, on a global scale. There were also those who actively fanned the flames to advance their own political agendas. But, on the whole, it is a mistake to try to relate the resulting fire to the size of the spark, without trying to understand the size of the accumulation of fuel in between times.

Indeed, in 2005, the explosions in the French suburbs that resulted in rioting, curfews and a state of emergency were not related to a confrontation between “the West” and “Islam”. But police stereotyping of second-generation immigrants and young people’s sense of marginalisation – the unfulfilled promises of the Western lifestyle, distinct feelings of being second-class citizens, unaddressed grievances and other issues – all provided an accumulating stock of fuel, waiting for the right spark to ignite it into a roaring blaze, a spark that in this case had nothing to do with Islam.

In the US in the 1960s, starting with the Watts riots and subsequently affecting many urban centres, black citizens revolted and burned down entire areas of major cities. Again, this unrest was caused by small sparks, sometimes things as little as a parking ticket, but such seemingly inconsequential sparks unleashed vast reservoirs of resentment and grievances over unmet demands for justice and equality. Minor versions of that social nightmare revived questions of the brutality of white police officers against black citizens, most recently from Ferguson, Missouri to Cleveland, Ohio.

So, the first misunderstanding to be cleared up is that it is the accumulation of fuels and not the spark that must be addressed. What is essential is to drain away those fuels and air out the receptacles that held them.

In the meantime, it is also important that these same “accumulated fuels” are recognised as creating the fertile soil for the recruitment of disaffected youths to extremist networks, whether their appeal be religious or secular.

The changing view of Muslims

Political expressions of youth movements were manifested in the revolutions of the Arab Spring in 2011 and subsequent uprisings. The fact that many of these revolutions were taken over by organised religious forces, and that the rifts in many societies led to chaotic conditions, civil wars and the emergence of the most extreme forms of barbaric terrorism being displayed by the forces of Daesh in Iraq and Syria, is a manifestation of the combination of several historical and societal currents.

The intellectual bankruptcy of many Arab regimes over long periods of their reign preceding the revolutions of the Arab Spring ; their inability to renew the social contract in a meaningful fashion and the continued monopolisation of power by a mediocre elite that suppressed youthful talent and imposed a system of patronage for political and social advancement.

The re-emergence of political Islam, long suppressed by a nationalist and secular political narrative, but given new wings by the Iranian revolution, the funding of the oil states, rich Arab individuals and the emergence of Hezbollah in Lebanon during the long civil war there and its role in the Israeli war against Lebanon. These and other factors were“topped up”by the return of the “Afghan Arabs”, who were allied to the native mujahideen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which yielded the Taliban regime there.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent mismanagement of the tense ethnic and religious cleavages in Iraqi society dealt a traumatic blow to the self-confidence of Muslims, who viewed the direct invasion by America and its allies of both Iraq and Afghanistan as a direct humiliation of Muslims by the West. Furthermore, the systematic murder of civilians through the use of drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere served to inflame the sentiments of victimisation that fed the Muslim majorities’ emotional despair and consequent greater readiness to accept more extreme positions that would promise a return of a modicum of self-esteem and dignity in the face of perceived continued humiliation.

The continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the incompetence of Fatah and its leadership, which brought forth Hamas in Gaza.

The emergence of powerful tyrannical bureaucracies, especially in Egypt, which stifle and alienate all who deal with them. These types of bureaucratic tyranny had already been identified as causes of youthful rebellion in the 1960s throughout the West.

ON EXTREMISM AND VIOLENCE

So, let us review the mechanisms of extremism and violence and how we can confront them. Let us dissect the mechanisms of radicalisation, recruitment and mobilisation used by extremist ideologies.

We have to be aware that the primary responsibility lies on our side of the Mediterranean, and that we are the ones that must get the Muslim majorities to reject the extremist and fanatic fringe, to condemn the barbarous acts of mayhem and murder, the crimes against humanity that are being committed on a daily basis under the guise of promoting their particular version of Islam. To do so, we must change the religious, public and cultural discourse in our countries and we must start with an auto-critique among our intellectuals by asking why our societies have become such fertile ground for extremism and violence and by asking what we did wrong in the past.

There is no doubt that advances in this respect will have positive ideological and identity-related effects on the Muslim communities in Europe, which – when combined with other efforts to promote democratic security – will help reduce youth radicalisation and curb the lure of extremism and violence.

The Arab and Muslim worlds are in a paroxysm of violence and chaos ; of collapsing states and rising militias ; of terrorism and horrors beyond description ; of countless victims and dislocated populations. Doubtless, military force and strong state policing will be needed to restore order, stability and security. But beyond the necessary military and police action, there is still a need to understand why these extreme ideas that beget violence and terrorism have spread in our societies and how such ideas can be fought with ideas. This is a subject on which the Library of Alexandria has led the way with an auto-critique of what went wrong and a bold exploration of how ideas can be fought with ideas.

It is clear from such arguments that we should promote pluralism and multifaceted identities within the national entity, or even the supranational entity, as in Europe. Such a cultural framework should also facilitate orderly change through discussion and debate and peaceful participatory means of citizen engagement. All these aspects will diffuse potential tensions and make it difficult for extremism to take root, for dissidence to turn to anger and for anger to turn into rage and violence.

Let us go back to dissecting the mechanisms of radicalisation, recruitment and indoctrination that take young people into extremism and violence.

On extremism

Extremism is a political position in which adherents reject all possibility of discussion, reject any notion about the possible error of their understandings and push their arguments to the most extreme positions. Each political school of thought has its extremists, but extremists of all stripes in the end reject accommodation with others who do not share their views. Extremism begets violence.

Recruitment and indoctrination

It is important to understand that the grounds for the rise of extremism are prepared from a very early age. Modern science seems to agree that pre-school and family influences on the child are very important in the formation of attitudes and deep-rooted belief systems. These may mix with other attitudes, being strengthened or diluted, but can still re-emerge later in life. Thus, abused children often become abusers themselves. Abuse includes physical as well as emotional abuse and neglect, and the influence of adults on the formation of the child must not be underestimated. Vital too are the teachers in the school system and the teaching materials they use.

Beyond parent and school, possibly the most important source of influence – especially since it is strongest in the transitional stage of adolescence, of rebellious teens – is the influence of peers. Because of the internet and social connectivity, peer groups today include virtual as well as physical groups.