Causes of Terrorism Introduction The causes of terrorism are not the proximate causes of terrorism, but rather factors that help establish an environment in which terrorism is more likely to occur. Terrorists are inspired by many different motives. In the shadowy underworld of international terror, things are not always what they seem. Groups with diverse, even opposing, ideologies and differing goals often help each other when they share a common enemy. And while a terrorist act may be over in a matter of minutes, the planning and the coordination of such an event may take years. Research literature on causational factors and diverse goals that drives people to resort to carry out terrorist acts is inconclusive. How these two are connected can be a matter of debate: are researched causes derived from terrorists manifestos, implicitly or explicitly worded goals, or are living conditions perceived as unjust and not decent and therefore its goals may be inferred, or a mere conjecture? Multiple reasons are listed here, of which some seem to be more applicable than others, and some others tend to go together for identification of more or less convincing causational factors. Ethnicity, Nationalism/Separatism Probably the most contested cause of terrorism is an aggrieved group resorting to violence for nationalist or separatist reasons; depending on ones point of view, this can be considered as resistance against an external oppressor. Thus far, only Mahatma Gandhi and his followers of the freedom movement have managed to liberate themselves from foreign occupation by peaceful means, whereas in most other previously colonized states nationalism movements commonly turned to terrorism, it being the resort of an extremist faction of this broader movement within an ethnic minority. The relation between ethnic minorities and the likelihood of conflict, for example to establish or assert language rights, religious beliefs and symbols , but it also includes factors like civil and political rights and privileges, regional-ethnic parity in the economy. What then generates perceptions of unfairness is competition/rivalry when an ethnicity is subordinated or disadvantaged in economic opportunity, social status, political voice and rights, or cultural expressions. However, the cited factors are not unique for ethnic minorities. To generalize it further, ethnic conflict arises from a complex combination of class, inequality, political opportunity, mobilization resources and ethnic strength. How can ethnic strength be measured, and to what extend is ethnicity and related nationalist separatist movements a constructed concept? Nevertheless, the idea works for mobilizing people. One note of caution on the importance of ethnic conflict is appropriate that most ethnic groups live in peace with each other. Historical antecedents of political violence, civil wars, revolutions, dictatorships or occupation may lower the threshold for acceptance of political violence and terrorism, and impede the development of non- violent norms among all segments of society. The victim role as well as longstanding historical injustices and grievances may be constructed to serve as justifications for terrorism. When young children are socialized into cultural value systems that celebrate martyrdom, revenge and hatred of other ethnic or national groups, this is likely to increase their readiness to support or commit violent atrocities when they grow up. When local or international powers possess an overwhelming power compared to oppositional groups, and the latter see no other realistic ways to forward their cause by normal political or military means, “asymmetrical warfare” can represent a tempting option. Terrorism offers the possibility of achieving high political impact with limited means. Repression by foreign occupation or by colonial powers has given rise to a great many national liberation movements that have sought recourse in terrorist tactics and other political means. Despite their use of terrorist methods, some liberation movements enjoy considerable support and legitimacy among their own constituencies, and sometimes also from segments of international public opinion. Powerful external actors upholding illegitimate governments may be seen as an insurmountable obstacle to needed regime change. Such external support to illegitimate governments is frequently seen as foreign domination through puppet regimes serving the political and economic interests of foreign sponsors. Poverty and Economic Disadvantage, Globalization A more important factor may be the social stratification and inequalities in the distribution of scarce resources. Extensive contemporary media and literature simplify this to the poverty argument : when a group is absolutely or relatively deprived they rebel. There has been relatively little spill-over from political violence within Third World states into the international arena. In addition to economic development, the possible effects a debilitated liberal democracy in Third World countries may induce and facilitate, but without formulating a sound conclusion on the matter either. Rapid modernization and urbanization in the form of high economic growth has also been found to correlate strongly with the emergence of ideological terrorism, but not with ethno-nationalist terrorism. This may be particularly important in countries where sudden wealth (e.g. from oil) has precipitated a change from tribal to high-tech societies in one generation or less. When traditional norms and social patterns crumble or are made to seem irrelevant, new radical ideologies that are sometimes based on religion or perhaps nostalgia for a glorious past, may become attractive to certain segments of society. Lack of Democracy The factor of democracy as an instigator or facilitator for terrorism deserves further exploration. A democratic government is supposed to represent the people and provide political means to voice grievances, hence essentially providing a sphere where terrorism has no place. For this reason, in theory, there cannot be an aggrieved group that is not adequately represented; otherwise, it is a violation of the doctrines of democracy and constitutionalism. In reality, this may not be the case: for example the second-class citizens in the democratic Jewish state Israel (excluding non-Jewish citizens certain rights). Such a situation would fit Wilkinsons assertion that political violence is morally justifiable in a democracy in two occasions: Firstly, there is the case of the minority whose basic rights and liberties are denied or taken away by arbitrary action of the government or its agencies. Second when one minority is attacked by another minority and does not receive adequate protection from the state and its forces of law and order, and those who are the subjects of a liberal state, but who are not admitted to its rights of citizenship cannot be morally bound to obedience to the state. They are not bound by political obligation for they have not been accorded any rights by the state. Arguably, based on these claims, one can say it is exactly absence of a correct implementation of democratic ideals and not democracy. However, a characteristic of democracies is their openness. Some, consider this openness a major weakness of the system, and therefore a cause. Openness in itself cannot be a cause, only maybe easing terrorists in their preparations and facilitating publicity in the relative absence of censorship, but not the change of mindset to resort to terrorism as a tool. Likewise the non-cause of the claims of the increase in ease of mobility and technology. It is conceivable to contend that Western states are as close to the democratic ideology as possible, then, why have Western states not been free from internal terrorism? What might be a cause, is the so-called terror of the majority: the minority is represented and allowed to voice their grievances, but this is consistently not translated into desired policies because there are not sufficient votes to pass desired legislation. The relationship between terrorism and democracy continues to challenge scholars in their search for causes of terrorism. It is generally agreed that a lack of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law are preconditions for many forms of domestic terrorism. Generally, the most democratic and the most totalitarian societies have the lowest levels of oppositional violence. Failed or weak states on the other hand, lack the capacity – or sometimes the will – to exercise territorial control. This often leaves a power vacuum that is can be exploited by terrorist organizations to maintain safe havens, training facilities or serve as bases for launching terrorist campaigns. However, this should not be perceived as simply a lack of democracy or democratic processes. Long standing liberal democracies with established traditions of free speech and tolerance have been the targets of both domestic and foreign terrorism. democracy and terrorism are not polar opposites: saying ‘yes’ to democracy, unfortunately, does not mean saying ‘no’ to terrorism. Illegitimate or corrupt governments frequently give rise to opposition that may turn to terrorist means if other avenues are not seen as realistic options for replacing these regimes with a more credible and legitimate government or a regime which represents the values and interests of the opposition movement. Disaffected Intelligentsia There are two points which demand attention, Firstly, that the main cause of terrorism are disgruntled, disaffected, intelligentsia who are in a social and moral crisis unable to mobilize the masses. This is a primary internal cause of terrorism, dictating to a degree its philosophy, tactics and consequences. Intellectuals, of the type of ambitious idealist, do not have a rebellious lower class to lead due to shifts from primary and manual work to the services sector, nor do they receive guidance from a creative upper class that they can follow. When rigid social stratification shatters hope for social transformation, then the ingredients are present for a start or rise in terrorist activities in an attempt to reconnect with the masses who they claim to represent and aspire to lead. But now, access to third level education has increased to such an extend that it devalues degrees to a minimum standard for procuring a job. Is the degree graduate now the new (white collar) working class stuck in his/her cubicle? If true, then the gap between the masses and intelligentsia is smaller at present, hence more likely to be bridge-able, and therefore less prone to induce ideas to resort to terrorism. The second aspect is a broad discussion on the myriad of, predominantly leftist, political ideologies - indirectly the perceived cause being the undemocratic government, unfair capitalist system et al - but may simply be a failed revolution. Dehumanization Opposite the concept of disaffected intelligentsia is the assertion that it is not intelligentsia, but simple minded people who are easy to indoctrinate that are perceived to be the cause prevalent in more recent popular literature. They, and others, are essentially trying to dehumanize terrorists, thereby confirming terrorists core reasons they are fighting for: being heard, recognized and treated as equal human beings. In this context, there is an interesting explanation for the increased levels of dehumanization: a continuation of the frozen, abstract hatreds made possible by the cold war, this suspending of normal human relations is supposed to be just a temporary expedient. The corrupt thing about the Cold War idea was that it legitimized acceptance of this evil as a normal, permanent condition of life. It domesticated tribal hatred. Thus obfuscating the distinction between literal and metaphorical wars, where the negative mindset of people caused by the Cold War continues to live on, and feed, terrorism and the violent responses on terrorism, made possible by disregarding the idea that an opponent is a human being too. However, a closer examination of this argument reveals that the implied cause of the violence is within us, having internalized dehumanization, not the illiterate stupid other. Bad ReligionIn line with either dehumanization, or with previously outlined ethnicity and democracy or both, is religion as a cause for terrorism put forward, Muslim fanatics in the Middle East in particular. Democracy is declared un-Islamic by all ideologues of Islamic terrorism, Islamists hate capitalism and believe in a new Caliphate (who will lead the community of Muslims worldwide) and oppose individualism. All religions emphasize that one should treat others as we wish to be treated, and that one should not kill another human being. From an Islamic perspective, there are scholars who consider Western society, which is based on Christian theology, as the main cause of terrorism, and Darwinism and materialism in particular, including Malthus theory of ruthlessness, also known under the definition of social Darwinism. Religion may be the most volatile of cultural identifiers because it encompasses values deeply held. A threat to one’s religion puts not only the present at risk but also one’s cultural past and the future. Many religions, including Christianity and Islam, are so confident they are right that they have used force to obtain converts. Terrorism in the name of religion can be especially violent. Like all terrorists, those who are religiously motivated view their acts with moral certainty and even divine sanctions. What would otherwise be extraordinary acts of desperation becomes a religious duty in the mind of the religiously motivated terrorist. This helps explain the high level of commitment and willingness to risk death among religious extremist groups. Conclusion Among the multitude of causes that may lead a person to resort to terrorism, there is none that conclusively links a sole cause to the act. Ethnicity, nationalism/separatism, poverty and economic disadvantage, globalization, Lack of democracy, Western society, disaffected intelligentsia, dehumanization, and religion all have arguments confirming a possible existing link, as well reservations against a causal relation. Given the multifaceted and diverse scope of terrorism, distinguishing the causes of the phenomenon has proven to be an equally complex undertaking. Bearing in mind the limited range of scholarly literature that directly address the causes, we can conclude that the question of ‘why’ and ‘how’ are still not crystal clear. Additional research is needed not only to serve as a fundamental theoretical framework on the topic, but also to bring us closer to understanding those aspects of causes that can eventually be isolated as specific causes of terrorism and thus be sufficiently dealt with. While significant contributions to the field have been made, many have raised more questions than they have provided answers. Thus, while we continue to search for the answers, it is imperative that we do not perpetuate unfounded ideas as the basis for understanding the causes of terrorism. This is especially true today when the temptation to focus solely on certain forms of religious-inspired terrorism are immense. Investigating the balance between different sets of factors may also contribute to a better understanding of the nature of the phenomenon. Perhaps Kofi Annan said it best - “We should not pretend that the decision to resort to terrorism is unrelated to the political, social and economic situation in which people find themselves. But we are also mistaken if we assume, equally, that terrorists are mere products of their environment. The phenomenon is more complex than that.” (United Nations Secretary General, 2003).
Posted on: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:42:36 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015