Democracy will not reduce threat of terrorism

Harsh V Pant, The Statesman, Asia News Network, Calcutta, India

The Bush Administration has advocated spreading democracy in the Middle East as part of a long-term strategy of fighting terrorism. This "forward strategy of freedom" will reduce the threat of terrorism, it is believed, because the region will no longer be "a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence for export".

While spreading democracy is a noble and worthwhile goal for philosophical and human rights reasons, the value of spreading democracy to undermine terrorism, which is the main rationale articulated by the government, is far less clear.

In November 2003, President Bush declared that the U.S. long- term strategy for defeating terrorism would be based on the spread of democracy in the Middle East and around the globe. Democracy, according to Bush, is "the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror...By advancing freedom in the greater Middle East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and radicalism that...brings danger to our own people".

The argument that democracy would reduce the threat from terrorism is based on the premise that economic and political frustrations are turned into rabid anti-Americanism in illiberal or repressive regimes.

In a democracy, the potential for violence is subsumed by the political process itself, which allows for more opportunities for legitimate protest.

With greater political power and higher economic expectations, "men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives". Condoleezza Rice reiterated this logic during her 9/11 testimony, in which she stated that the "source of the problem" of terrorism was the "freedom deficit in the Middle East".

Democracies are arguably better at undermining terrorism because they have several types of conflict-reducing mechanisms. The strength of democracy in fighting terrorism may lie in various mechanisms: Elections reduce the need for political violence to bring about social change; a free media reduces the need to use violence to get oneself heard; and impartial courts reduce the need for minorities to use violence to protect their rights.

These mechanisms (elections, media, and courts) are useful in minimizing political violence, particularly social unrest and civil wars, but also terrorist violence.

This general argument -- that spreading democracy will reduce the threat from terrorism -- is entirely plausible and well- argued by its proponents.

It has also been claimed that compared to colonial regimes and autocracies the established Western liberal democracies have been remarkably free of large-scale revolutionary strife and separatist wars.

The historical record, though, shows that democracies have been disproportionately targeted by terrorists. Practically every democratic and liberal country has been victimized by terrorists: The United States has in the last few years been attacked by al- Qaeda (several times), the Oklahoma City bombers, and whoever was responsible for the anthrax attacks in 2001; the United Kingdom has waged a thirty-year campaign against the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland; West Germany dealt with the Baader- Meinhof gang and the Red Army Faction; France was confronted with Algerian separatists (FLN) and Action Directe; Italy faced the Red Brigades; Spain has fought a forty-year campaign against the Basque ETA; Israel has been attacked by the PLO, Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, and even Jewish groups; Japan has been attacked by the Aum Shinrikyo cult; Canada dealt with Quebec separatists (FLQ); and India has faced terrorism in Punjab, Kashmir, and Northeast, just to name a few of the most prominent examples.

In contrast, terrorist campaigns directed against non- democracies are far fewer, less severe, and less well-known. The best examples are the Russian anarchist movement, the Serbian Black Hand, the ETA during Franco's regime, narco-terrorism in some Latin American countries, and sporadic attacks by Islamic fundamentalists against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Clearly, the historical record shows that democracies are not less likely to be victims of terrorism.

This would bring into question whether the logic behind the argument (that spreading democracy will reduce the threat of terrorism) is sound.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is much likely that spreading democracy might end up having a lot of negative consequences for countering terrorism.

Democracies are also more tempting targets for terrorists because attacks are easier to plan and carry out in a democracy, there are more targets to attack, the state is less likely to use repressive methods to fight terrorism, and democracies are perceived to be more likely to concede to terrorists demands. All of this makes spreading democracy a counter-productive strategy for fighting terrorism.

What should be done instead? It is imperative to have a better understanding of the causes of terrorism. In terms of U.S. policy, the key question is: What are the causes of terrorism that is directed against the U.S.? Or, to focus just on al-Qaeda, what motivated al-Qaeda and its members? To begin answering this, al-Qaeda is a nationalist organization devoted to ending the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

While they have religious fundamentalist undertones, their primary goal is political not religious. They recruit members who are motivated by religious fundamentalism and by a feeling of political resentment over what they see as U.S. imperialism.

For this specific threat, the policy recommendations are negative ones. Spreading democracy will not reduce the risk of terrorism; instead, it will make it worse because spreading democracy will require a greater U.S. presence in the Middle East that will only serve to fuel the fire of al-Qaeda.

Spreading democracy may be a worthwhile goal for humanitarian and philosophical reasons, but it will not reduce the threat from terrorism, including terrorism from al-Qaeda. At the end of the day, "democracy may be the cure for only one thing -- tyranny".

The writer is a research scholar in the department of political science at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana.