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.