• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Terrorism versus liberalism

P.R.Brahmananda

ORGANISED, state-supported, terrorism is probably the most serious danger to the functioning of free and open societies. We thought the 20th Century had won victories against the fundamentalisms of fascist, racist, imperialist and extremist and violence- supporting communist ideologies, all of which were assaults on liberal societies, which have the co-existence of various sorts of individualistic, but pluralistic standpoints.

The attack on America was probably intended on its four symbols: the World Trade Centre, connoting faith in free business and trade; the Pentagon, signifying powerful military might and intelligence; Air force One, signifying the superiority of American sky power; and the White House, pointing to the most powerful democratically elected leader in the world.

The terrorists could not succeed in demonstrating the vulnerability of the latter two symbols. This means that even powerful and suicidal organisations cannot fully succeed always. Sometimes, the best plans of Evil are defeated. This is one source of hop e for Good. But the terrorist organisation has already done enormous damage to the concept of a strong, free and liberal society. The damage, however, can only be temporary. Those who are acquainted with the enormous reserves of the US will know that Ame rican spirits cannot be downed by such attacks.

From all accounts, the attack was pre-planned and could have emanated from persons within the American system. Such persons probably have links with powerful government(s) elsewhere. It is not possible to conceive of such attacks without support from som e financially well-placed and militarily well-organised government(s). Such a state may even show itself as an ally of the United States.

But the investigative power of the American agencies is such that outward deceptions may not help. The American strategy, with which the NATO powers will also be involved, may be drawn out but it is bound to succeed. Ordinary common people all over the w orld who are threatened by terrorist organisations will support the US in its lead to end organised terrorism.

What lies at the back of these terrorist organisations? Are the members recruited on mercenary lines? Are they imbibed with a sense of righteous faith in their own cause, though this may involve huge losses of human beings unconnected even indirectly wit h their hates? Or are they instruments of some powerful leaders or governments who want to bring down the US? Are they not aware of the very powerful resilience and deep reserves of this country?

Surely, howsoever tall and strong the World Trade towers are, they do not contain even a fragment of the true wealth of the US. Neither stone walls nor steel towers store wealth. Wealth arises out of physical and human capital, and abundant land. Income is a river which flows out of production and such activities. This cannot be affected permanently by terrorist attacks.

A portion of a large country, such as the US, may partly cease to work for one or two days. But this has a very limited effect on the income flow. This will be recouped very soon. How can the fundamental policies of the US be changed by such terrorist at tacks? In fact, this calamity will make the US work harder, and the current recession will actually be overcome sooner than otherwise.

America does not cease to be a safe haven because of such terrorist attacks. The small conveniences in travel, communications and in entry to buildings may temporarily be suspended. But note that, if the terrorist menace can be overcome once and for all, the world as a whole will be able to enjoy more conveniences than otherwise. In fact, entry and exit barriers to travel have come into existence mostly because of potential threats from terrorist organisations.

At the seed of terrorism are extreme feelings of alleged injustice to ethnic or nationalist groups, extreme ambitions to control those who cannot be won over through peaceful persuasions, extreme poverty which makes individuals turn into mercenaries. But mere feelings by themselves cannot lead to organised terrorist attacks. These attacks require a huge financial and training support base, which can only be provided by governments. This, then, is the problem.

Except in rare cases, democratic societies with free elections and which function transparently cannot generally serve as bases for terrorist organisations with extra-national interests. However, in some cases if the governments themselves are at the mer cy of fundamentalist forces, and if within the country pluralist groups are not allowed to function freely, terrorist organisations can function without popular opposition to them. This, then, is a very serious problem.

The concept of liberalism as prevalent in the UK or in the US and even in India derives support from the existence of multi-ethnic groups in the country. John Rawls argues that to the extent that all groups accept some minimum conditions, pluralisms can exist in the political sphere. But if pluralist groups do not exist within countries, a democratic form by itself cannot provide a guarantee against the seeds of terrorism.

The world did not notice how a country like Afghanistan was trying to destroy even minimum symbols of pluralism. Similarly, religious organisations enforcing codes on non-violent personal behaviour of human beings do not go well with the concept of liber alism. Tiny seeds of this sort can lead to, or strengthen, huge terrorist outfits, which can render democracy meaningless. In one sense, the conflict between the state and religion, wherein the government of a country had to accept extra-territorial comm ands from the papal authority, had to be resolved in favour of the state. But where the government cannot control rival powers of such sorts and if these powers get their strength extra-territorially, such a society cannot be internally liberal.

One would think that there are four conditions for the non-existence of terrorist organisations, even in democracies. The government of a country should have the whole allegiance of its nationals in matters concerning government. Second, such a governmen t must be part of an international order in which every government agrees not to harbour terrorist organisations. Third, there must be maximum scope for pluralist viewpoints and faiths to prevail in the country. Mercenarism of all sorts has to be eschewe d in every country.

The last is a very difficult condition. It would require a state of affairs in which no individual, because of economic circumstances, can be bought over or hired by terrorist and such organisations, whose aim is to cause damage to innocent lives and pro perties, and to serve ends specific to those organisations. Kant's principles that every life is sacred for its own sake in every society and that no individual should use others, or even himself, as a means, have to be the foundations for the functionin g of every society.

The US should take a lead in establishing a world free from terrorist attack, terrorist organisations and from the fear of such attacks and organisations. That would be the best way of commemorating the loss of those innocent lives in the inhuman terrori st attack on the morning of September 11th.