Socio-cultural approaches in combating terrorism

Socio-cultural approaches in combating terrorism

Aleksius Jemadu
Bandung

We have heard a lot about the futility of using military
approaches in the fight against terrorism. Moreover, people are
increasingly convinced that suicide bomb attacks would not stop
even if the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew from
Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is a growing awareness that both Muslims and Christians
can play an important role in moderating radical views within
their respective communities. For instance, some church leaders
in the United States have criticized U.S. military policy in Iraq
on the grounds that it does not reflect the centrality of love
and compassion cherished by Christianity.

Interfaith dialog among people of different religious
backgrounds is one form of socio-cultural approach in dealing
with the phenomenon of religious radicalism currently leading to
suicide bomb attacks in various parts of the world.

Unfortunately, regardless of its importance, interfaith
dialogs that have been practiced so far by several civil society
groups have had their own limitations.

For instance, those who participate in the dialogs are the
religious elite or the educated members of the faith communities.
Normally, religious leaders, teachers or university students are
invited to a certain place in order to share their religious
experience. They then return to their respective communities
without any concrete follow-up programs to practice what they
have learnt.

On top of that, interfaith dialogs only contribute to the
improvement of knowledge about other people's religion. There is
no guarantee that better knowledge about other religions should
lead to a genuine respect of other persons. People need to go
beyond the cognitive and epistemological domain of their social
interactions in order to develop peaceful attitudes and tolerant
behaviors toward one another. As such, interfaith tolerance
should take root not only in the minds but also, and more
importantly, in the hearts of the people.

Unfortunately, the history of interfaith tolerance in
Indonesia has always been orchestrated by the state. As far as
interfaith tolerance is concerned, the state or the government
always perceives itself as having higher moral authority to teach
the citizens how to behave. The Ministry of Religious Affairs
whose reputation has been currently damaged by corruption
scandals is generally perceived to be a distinct embodiment of
the state's moral authority. The dominant role of the state in
strategizing interfaith tolerance has weakened grassroots
initiatives in promoting more genuine tolerance.

Taking into account the important role of religious
authorities in nurturing tolerant and peaceful behavior among
their followers, it is expected that their leaders take a leading
role in promoting pluralism in society. Due to the vulnerability
of the Indonesian people to communal violence, all religious
leaders have a responsibility to reaffirm "the importance of
fostering an overlapping, pluralistic pattern of group
memberships and communal allegiances" (Stephen Macedo, 2000).

The existence of pluralistic group memberships can prevent any
single group from totally absorbing the social allegiance of its
members. Civil society organizations of different kinds like
NGOs, mass media, professionals, and universities should take the
initiative in promoting pluralism in society.

According some scholars, including John Rawls (1971), it is
through these pluralistic groups and associations that a society
can foster reciprocity and a recurrent experience of cooperation
with people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds. What
Rawls calls "cooperative virtues" can be an effective antidote
for group fanaticism of all sorts. Without a genuine respect for
pluralism by all religious groups in society, Indonesia will
cease to be a modern democratic state. Those groups or
individuals who reject pluralism in social interactions are
actually denying their own right to be respected as human beings
with a distinctive identity.

The failure of military approaches in eradicating radicalism
and terrorism should make Western donor countries and funding
agencies aware of the increasing importance of socio-cultural
approaches in dealing with this issue. Unfortunately, larger
proportions of foreign assistance given to the Indonesian
government to deal with the issue of terrorism is directed to the
strengthening of the state's coercive power.

Intelligence cooperation, the establishment of anti-terror
special forces, military training and exercises and other forms
of security cooperation constitute a blatant affirmation that
indeed violence is the only way to deal with global terrorism. It
is high time to allocate more funds on the social agenda of
fostering more genuine social interactions among people of
different religious backgrounds in society. Most, if not all, of
the suicidal bombers come from a social environment which allows
no affective interaction with people of different religious
background.

We can never change the mind-sets of the terrorists with a
bullet, but as human beings they certainly need a recurrent
experience of love and compassion. We all have a responsibility
to create a social environment within which such kind of love
might reign over hatred.

The writer is head of the department of international
relations, Parahyangan University, Bandung. He can be reached at
aleks@home.unpar.ac.id.