Causes of terrorism

ADDRESSING a group of faculty and students at a Chinese university on November 4, General Musharraf maintained that any long-term approach to the suppression of terrorism must include the identification of its underlying causes and their redress.

Heads of other governments and organizations —for instance President Mohammad Khatami of Iran, President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan— have recently made the same plea, and it must be said that the plea sounds eminently sensible. Closer examination will suggest, however, that the issue is a lot more complex than one might have imagined at first.

For purposes of this discussion, let us define terrorism as indiscriminate violence perpetrated on non-combatant persons simply because they belong to a group whose leaders or rulers are perceived as oppressors of the entity with which the terrorist is affiliated.

Understanding the causes of terrorism in a specific context is not the same as condoning it. General Musharraf understands, and may even sympathize with, Taliban’s grievances and urges. Yet, he condemns their actions and has joined the American campaign to wipe them out. As the Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said at a conference on terrorism in New York last September, the worthiness of the terrorist’s cause, assuming it is worthy, does not diminish the ignominy of his act.

Let us first take stock of the conditions that may provide a setting for the emergence of terrorism but do not necessarily cause it. There is, for instance, only a tenuous and indirect relationship between poverty and terrorism. Countries that are the most poor are virtually free of terrorism. The poor are much more likely to riot than to commit acts of terrorism. Those who do commit such acts have generally been found to belong to the middle and upper middle classes. Latin America’s Tupamaros and Montoneros, German Baaden-Meinhof, Italiam Red Brigade. France’s Action Directe, and the Sandanista in Nicaragua were all middle class people. Most of them were reasonably well educated. They would have had no use for ignorant peasants.

Terrorists do not flourish in advanced democracies or under harsh dictatorships. There were no terrorists in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany. They are more likely to arise in countries that are partially democratic and allow civil rights and liberties in some measure. In Latin America in the 1970s terrorism first surfaced in Uruguay, which was more democratic than any other republic in the region. It will also surface under inefficient dictatorship. It follows that while the absence of democracy may bring forth mutinies or popular revolts, it may or may not have anything to do with the rise of terrorism.

Often enough terrorists come from countries that have reached a medium level of economic development, rapid modernization and social change that make traditional roles and patterns of interaction dysfunctional.

A government may itself engage in terrorist activities; send out its own military and police personnel to visit death and destruction on persons or groups considered undesirable (as Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for more than fifty years). Additionally or alternatively, it may harbour existing terrorist groups, fund them, and use them as instruments of its own policy. It does not normally create such groups; nor can it fully control them. Its aid increases their capability, and it gives them a measure of respectability in the society where they are based.

Religious persuasions may act as enabling agents but religion, as such, does not produce suicide terrorists. Many of them are secular-minded men and women moved not by spiritual but political goals, such as freedom from foreign occupation or alien ethnic domination. It should be noted also that terrorists are not irrational. They exercise reason and logic in a context, and in a frame of reference that are different from those to which many of us are accustomed.

What then are the causes? Terrorism has surfaced in a variety of polities, and it would then be imprudent to name a single root cause or a universally valid set of root causes. The Shia and Sunni militants who hurl bombs at each other’s congregations are not in the same league with the Basques in Spain or the IRA in Northern Ireland.

I should like to submit, with due circumspection, that the following types of causes seem to provide the more common motivation for terrorist acts at the present time. They are ideological extremism, desire for national liberation, dissatisfaction with dominance by an alien ethnic group, and opposition to the western world’s (especially the American) hegemony and exploitation of the Third World. These “causes” can be translated to read “injustice.”

“Remove the causes,” say General Musharraf and others. Let us see if that can be done. We take first the domestic, and then the foreign, dimension of religious extremism. How do we remove the Sunni militant’s intense disapproval of some of the Shia beliefs? Shall we ask the Shia to give up all those beliefs and practices which annoy the militant Sunni (in other words, ask them to stop being Shia)? They will not do it. Nor will the militant become tolerant of those who differ with him. Time may mellow him and when that happens he will no longer be a militant.

Islamic militants such as Al Qaeda and Taliban oppose America not only because of its unjust support of Israel, to which we will come shortly, but also because they are intensely disapproving of American (and western) way of life and its economic and political values. There is no possibility that America, or the West, will change its character to placate the Islamic militants. Insofar as its very identity is the cause of Al Qaeda terrorism, that cause will not be removed.

The Kashmiri insurgents are engaged in an armed struggle against the Indian forces, and the Indians call it terrorism. The cause here is the unwanted Indian occupation and rule. India is in no hurry to remove this cause, and governments across the world, other than that of Pakistan, are not concerned enough to pressure India into changing its mind.

To the extent that America’s disregard of Israel’s brutality in dealing with the Palestinians is a cause of anti-American terrorism, it is a cause that can, and in time probably will, be removed. More and more Americans are beginning to see that in the American-Israeli relationship America is the “dog” and Israel the “tail,” and it is the dog that should wag the tail, not the tail the dog. Some American commentators are saying also that their government should devise a settlement that is substantially just to both the Palestinians and the Israelis and impose it on the two sides.

America’s drive for hegemony and profit in the Third World, as a cause of terrorism, is not going to disappear until we or, to put it more realistically, our succeeding generations, begin to live once again in a bipolar or a multi-polar world. Possession of unsurpassed power is bound to breed hegemonic and covetous impulses. If and when America falls from its present station, another power or civilization will take its place.

The impulse to hegemony has occasionally been tempered with humane concerns. Hegemony is then transformed into leadership. Corporate America may not care for this distinction, but there can be little doubt that most Americans would want their government to be a leader instead of being the proverbial “tough guy” in world affairs. America will have to figure out what it stands for in the world beyond profit for its corporations. It must oppose subjugation and exploitation of the weak if it is to be the leader.

America spends several hundred billion dollars annually on defence, which does not necessarily buy the desired level of security. It would probably be more secure if the world felt friendlier towards it, which might happen if it were to do more to alleviate the suffering of the Third World people. An observer has estimated that an outlay of $9 billion will provide water and sanitation to the entire developing world for a whole year, $12 billion will pay for the reproductive health of all its women, $13 billion will give every person basic nutrition and health care, $6 billion will bring elementary education to all children. (I have seen these figures in the relevant literature but I cannot vouch for their accuracy.) It has been argued that this outlay will bring America more security than the allocation of an additional $100 billion to its military budget might.

Will American policy-makers bring to their task the requisite amount of compassion and enlightenment? The role of great powers in relation to smaller or weaker states through history does not encourage us to expect a radical change in America’s disposition. But the world today is not the same as it was even a hundred years ago. For one thing, the oppressed will no longer take injustice and oppression lying down. Terrorism has risen to levels unknown thirty years ago. Pragmatism, for which American statesmen are well known, may teach them that higher levels of benevolence and regard for justice will make good policy. But this remains to be seen.

We shall conclude, then, that while it may be possible to identify the causes of terrorism, there can be no assurance that those who bring these causes to the fore will remove them. We may, most regretfully, say also that terrorism, essentially a political act in most cases, will continue to surface within countries and across national borders. The oppressed have learned the requisite technology and they cannot be made to unlearn it. The battle against exploiters as well as that against terrorists will have to be fought on a day-to-day basis with no final end in sight. Al Qaeda and Taliban may go away, but goals and modus operandi similar to theirs will be adopted by others.

(The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA)

e-mail: anwarsyed@cox.net

Survival of parliament

PRESIDENT Musharraf speaks of good governance and his prime minister of transforming political culture. Both expressions have been beaten into cliches but the tide continues to flow in the opposite direction.

The reason for it is obvious: the absence of strong but fewer political parties, a secure and neutral public service and an independent judiciary which are the essential props of a healthy parliamentary system. Over the past three decades these have been corrupted and weakened. A presidential or authoritarian government can survive multiple and weak parties, the bane of public servants selected by politicians, and even a judiciary with political bias, but not a parliamentary government.

It is a paradox of Pakistan’s politics that while its elite and active cadres all along have shown a strong commitment to the parliamentary system, they have also been destroying the pillars on which it must rest. This phenomenon lies at the heart of the country’s recurring political crises. The constitutional and administrative changes made in the past four years, the rising militancy at home and insecurity on the borders have only given it a new and serious dimension.

The stalemate over the Legal Framework Order, which has divided every party into factions, now seems to be heading either for a compromise settlement (as a month’s unsolicited extension given by the MMA religious alliance indicates) or for a street confrontation. Either way it would further weaken the parliamentary system and not strengthen it.

If it didn’t lie in the power of the president to amend the Constitution through the LFO, it doesn’t lie in the power of the present parliament either. The LFO substantially amends the character and content of the Constitution. The controversy over it having arisen after the elections, the spirit of democracy demands that this issue be decided by the people, which means elections should be held afresh.

The present parliament must not act as a constituent assembly. Only the legislators returned through fresh elections could decide the form of the Constitution (parliamentary, presidential or an amalgam of both as LFO has made of the 1973 Constitution) and also the quantum of provincial autonomy. These two burning issues which have been a source of friction and instability would thus be resolved on the basis of a specific mandate from the people. The new election will also rid the national and provincial assemblies of the stigma of rigging, disqualifications and switching of loyalties which have impaired the representative character of the existing assemblies without improving their calibre. In fact, they have turned out to be rowdier and duller than before. It was a perverse scale of measuring eligibility for election in which a lady who was considered good enough to be the country’s ambassador to the United States could not be even a candidate for the National Assembly, but a horde of madressah “graduates” got in.

Then the increase in the strength of the assemblies by increasing the number of constituencies and through indirect elections has added to the expense but detracted from quality.

Nevertheless, while pleading for elections to seek a new constitutional mandate from the people, one remains sceptical of their ever taking place. Most members and groups seem not to want it irrespective of their view of the legality of the LFO — those holding it illegal need to be told they can’t have their cake and eat it too.

In this situation hardly anyone would be willing to endorse the prime minister’s assertion on improving political culture. On the other hand, whatever little propriety is left would also inevitably come under renewed stress when, as the newspapers speculate, the “agencies” go out to win more adherents to ensure a two-thirds majority for the ruling coalition. Incidentally, why such an effort at all should be launched, with the infamy accompanying it, when the government insists that the LFO doesn’t need even the simple majority approval of the parliament as it is already a part of the Constitution. But when politics is not clean and open such claims are inevitable. Whatever the devices used (obviously more members would not come over with the wave of a magic wand), it would be calamitous to parliamentary traditions.

The constitutional tangle will follow its own logic and take its own time to resolve or the controversy surrounding the LFO might just peter out. But, meanwhile, the attitude and decisions of the government all appear intended to humiliate the civil servants and make the civil services a career unattractive for the talented youth. The country’s premier administrative cadre has been all but wound up and others too are demoralized. Ironically, even the police which got all the attention and resources are high neither in morale nor in a sense of duty.

There can be no better indicator of the vanishing interest in the services than the fact that in a recent examination of the Federal Public Service Commission the first candidate from Karachi was in the 300th position on the merit list. Quite obviously all the promising youth of this city of a score of universities, and many among them educated abroad, have opted for other professions. Many bright young men used to line up to join the government service at a fraction of the wages in the private sector because of the prestige and security it gave. Both gone, now it has become a refuge only for the mediocre and the nominee.

If the parliamentary government even in its guarded form is to be made to work, there can be no escape from civil services to which appointments are made only through competition and not nomination. The point to make is that if our politicians relish the powers the Westminster model brings, they should also put up with the restraints it imposes. There is no way the British prime minister can make any appointment of any type in the Whitehall, otherwise John Majors brother wouldn’t have been working as a doorman at a departmental store.

This point needs an emphatic reminder because the appointments in the lower grades (up to 16) which the Musharraf administration had decided should be made through public service commissions, the parliamentarians have now decided to appoint on their own as their predecessors did. The result would be that cronies and goons will once again be taking up all those official positions which the common man comes in contact within departments like police, excise, income tax. The least influential and unqualified become teachers. No other explanation is needed for the state of education in the country.

Whether the present parliament is kept going through bargain or blackmail or a new one is brought in through fresh elections (conducted under universally accepted rules and procedures), the parliamentary government will continue to falter and fail as it has repeatedly in the past, if: one, the political parties continue to multiply and remain vulnerable to subversion by hostile forces; two, the civil services are subjected to arbitrary appointments and political pressures; and three, the lost public confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary is not restored. Safeguards for all three have to be provided in the Constitution to be effective.

In setting the laws and values right, the Musharraf administration has fared no better than the parliamentary governments of the nineties. The only blessing to count is that the people and the press who speak their minds freely are no longer persecuted. The freedom of conscience which a growing rabid militancy is denying to the citizens in the face of Musharraf’s and now Jamali’s dithering administration much more than it happened under political regimes is, however, another story which may be left to be told another time.

What became of good governance?

ON September 12, 1999, the elected prime minister of Pakistan, using his constitutional authority, removed the chief of the army staff from his post. In a coup from the air, the chief of the army staff, using his muscle, did not only sack him instead, but also threw him in jail. It took only 20 soldiers, who climbed into the Prime Minister’s House, to achieve this demarche, proving that while the edifice of democracy is in fact a sand castle, the route to military rule is strewn with roses in this country.

Thus, on 12/9 came into being the General Musharraf brand of yet another military dictatorship albeit this time on the promise of a plausible seven-point agenda. At the time this was something like a breath of fresh air after the stiflingly corrupt and rigged democracy of the previous 11 years. But alas this could not last, and the fresh air turned out to be just a whiff.

The all-embracing factor of Musharraf’s seven-point agenda was the promise of “good governance.” Economic progress, inter-provincial harmony, clean politics, accountability and implementation of all the other commitments in the agenda were entirely dependent on this. But it is sad that the military rulers have, in fact, inflicted such shockingly bad governance on the country as was never witnessed before. Let us look at the effect of this on the three pillars of the state, namely, the executive, legislature and the judiciary.

Cracks appeared in the armour of the military rulers at an early stage and their capacity to govern and control stands seriously challenged today. The political parties that had ruled for the previous 11 years and could not find holes deep enough to hide in, at the advent of military rule have now re-emerged with a vengeance. They take full advantage of their past links with the bureaucracy, the Election Commission and the judiciary and use their ill-begotten wealth to kick up such a storm of propaganda, trumpeting the bright prospects of their return to power, that the military rulers are rattled. Having failed in the long period of four years of unbridled rule to show any concern for the people and failing to give them even security of life, they are isolated. They have no rapport with the people and do not enjoy their trust and support. Thus, on the one hand, they have been compelled to open dialogue with these political parties, and on the other, have fallen back on the support of turncoats, corrupt politicians and traditional followers of anyone in power whom they had promised, in their agenda, to eliminate.

Soldiers who are trained to destroy cannot, generally speaking, be expected to build and improve. There are of course exceptions but not in this country. Indeed some progress was made in Gen Ayub Khan’s time but then the government was run by a team of top notch civilians. Anyhow, this time round the military rulers have proved to be singularly inept at being policy-makers and administrators.

The most distinguishing feature of this military rule is that, to them the civilians are not only fools but also matter the least. They just have to be ruled and it is the officers of the army who know all and can do all. Thus the country has been put under the charge of an hierarchy starting with the majors at the district level, colonels at the divisional levels and brigadiers at the provincial level while generals rule at the top and dictate policies. There are also the huge number of army officers, retired and otherwise, who have been planted in the services up to saturation point. This is the setting for the inevitable disastrous consequences that all are faced with today. No doubt army officers are trained and disciplined individuals who are also very decent and courteous, but launching them into a field which is totally alien to them has been harmful in the extreme. No less harmful than it would be if politicians were sent to conduct operations on the front. They have been misled and manipulated not only by the wily bureaucracy but also the foxy waderas, chaudhris, sardars and khans who practise the dubious art of flattery and sycophancy to perfection.

The much trumpeted economic progress, manifested mainly by increased foreign exchange reserves, is not the consequence of any new economic policy but of the reversal, in the wake of 9/11, of the flight of capital and the State Bank’s purchase of dollars in the market. There are other improvements in the economy but only on paper. There is still no relief to the harassed man in the street who is, more than ever before, trapped in the expanding web of poverty, unemployment, rocketing prices of essential commodities, lack of security, corruption and generally such hardships as to be driven to suicide.

Similarly, our foreign policy is only based on appeasing George Bush who has been an unmitigated disaster for his own people. By following him in his war against so-called terrorism, which is a poorly disguised crusade against Islam, we have blundered into conflict with very powerful revolutionary forces and those brave and admirable souls who are fighting for their cause even to the extent of suicidal attacks. Not only that but we have been drawn into an internecine war with our own people in Waziristan. We are left with no friends in the world community and are stuck in a groove with no new initiatives in our 56-year debilitating confrontation with India. The basic problem here is that we refused to face the reality that India is a far bigger power with an equally bigger standing in the world community. Our insistence on parity with India is acceptable to no one. The hectic foreign trips of the president and in his wake the hapless prime minister produce nothing.

More would be achieved if tours were conducted within the country, not to impose rejected schemes on the people, but to remove their grievances. Recently the Chinese were asked why they did not play a greater role in world affairs. They are reported to have replied that they were dealing with their local problems first. Likewise the greater Mahathir Mohammad, who neither crawled nor begged all over the world but settled down to building his country, has taken it to such giddy heights of progress that he stands like a mighty colossus whose dignified withdrawal from the scene is mourned by the world. A government which does not carry the confidence and support of its own people goes abroad with no credentials.

While one hears complaints about bad governance in other provinces, there is total administrative collapse in Sindh which has given rise to a state of anarchy. It is just a free for all in which, as in the Wild West, the fastest gun prevails. The writ of the government is not worth the paper it is written on. Lawlessness and corruption are rampant and have drowned out the machinery for their control. The people no longer look to the government, which has ignored them and includes politicians of doubtful reputation for redress. Instead they find their own solutions.

This leads to indiscriminate fights and killings which are a common occurrence and which the government can do nothing to stop. There are even many no-go areas for the government and when authority thus crumbles, even the small fry become brave. for the second year running the 27 sugar mill owners in Sindh have blatantly defied the government and refused to implement its orders on the price of sugar cane and back payments to cultivators. There is nothing the government seems capable of doing to enforce its edict.

All the instruments of administrative machinery have become blunt and corroded. The police are mostly corrupt and useless. They refuse to accept complaints at police stations or if they have to, they just refuse to act. It has become common and accepted practice for police officers to bargain with criminals to keep them out of their jurisdictions and in cases of kidnappings it is considered a big achievement to secure the release of the kidnapped person, usually on payment of ransom. The question of confronting or arresting the criminals does not arise. The law enforcement agencies stand defeated by criminals and are only good for guarding government functionaries and terrorizing the citizens. The remainder of the civil service, having become used to being led by corrupt, incompetent and illiterate ministers, has become corrupt, indolent and recalcitrant so that projects are either fraudulently implemented or not at all, leading to lapse of funds. Professionalism and discipline have disappeared and standards have hit rock bottom, so much so that even a report or a summary cannot be drafted and put up properly. It is also a fact that in Sindh at least, the PPP carries more clout in the bureaucracy than the rulers because of its links and the bluff that it is coming back to power. In the tainted politics of today which is without any principles, scruples or ideology the bureaucracy enjoys greater importance as the people only flock to those who have a say in administration.

Special mention must be made here of the Ushr and Zakat set-up. The performance in this area alone is enough to make a self-respecting government hang its head in shame. In this department appointments from top to bottom are made by way of reward or as a licence to loot and plunder. The funds meant for the blind, disabled and destitute are swallowed up at all levels by the office holders. These funds are even used to bribe polling staff, buy votes in elections and to cover expenses of candidates.

The executive functions of the government are further frustrated by the blackmail of the self-interested ministers, members of assemblies, nazims and councillors which the military rulers have selected as their fellow travellers. These characters have carved out territories for themselves where they have been given officers of their choice. They use these to suppress their opponent without regard for the law of the land or rules of decency. Criminals are being harboured and gambling dens, drug dens, trade of illegal arms, misappropriation of government funds and other malpractices are flourishing with impunity.

In the field of administrative reform, the government has introduced only two innovations in the whole period of four years and both have been an unmitigated disaster. These are the district government system and the police reforms. Never before has the citizen been subjected to such torture as he has to endure under the district government set-up. Instead of meeting the urgent need to simplify the government system at the lower level, it has been made so complicated and confused that even those propagating and operating it do not comprehend it. This goes with massive corruption and misuse of public funds by the bureaucracy, nazims and councillors.

The district government system is based on the so-called devolution plan of the military rulers and gives no indication of being honest. Genuine devolution must begin with transfer of power from Islamabad, which is nothing more than a usurper in the concept of Pakistan. It enjoys powers which should rightly vest in the provinces and instead of devolving these to them it has transferred what little remained with the provinces to the district governments. With no clear lines defining authority between the districts and provinces on various subjects, this is not a very clever attempt at eliminating the provinces and further strengthening the centre. This unbecoming design has ricocheted on the military rulers who are now unable to cope with the conflict and chaos they have generated. It is also highly embarrassing for them that the commanders in charge of cantonments have rejected this system as unsuitable.

Similarly, the police reforms have made the police a B team of the army, free from provincial government control, and multiplied the woes of the people. Here again simplification and streamlining was the urgent requirement but instead a mess has been created. There are now two separate branches of the police dealing with the same single matter at the police stations. This means double corruption, double incompetence, double victimization of the citizen, double burden on the exchequer and indeed double crime.

These two shots in the dark (district governments/devolution and police reforms) have backfired seriously. The rulers must now show their due concern by admitting the fact and rolling back the moves. To be stubborn on this is to cause more harm to the masses and increase their hostility.

(To be concluded)

The writer is chairman, Sindh National Alliance