Disenfranchising and its discontents
As the manipulation of religion in bids to challenge the status quo persists
The writer is a development anthropologist. He can be reached at ali@policy.hu
International think tanks continue obsessing over the threat of “jihadist terror” as a major global challenge. Islam, of course, is not the only religion being used by extremists to further nefarious designs. Christianity, Hinduism and even Buddhism, all have their own share of militant groups. Within the post-9/11 context, the fear of so-called “jihadi groups” proliferating has become the dominant concern. Yet the very concept of what factors motivate these groups and why and how they became such a potent force remains limited at best.
Militant groups claiming to be inspired by religion (Islam in this case) are now varied and abundant. Most groups are localised, wrangling amongst themselves. Some have the ability to traverse into neighbouring countries. Only a few have global ambitions, such as the IS.
The risk of the IS continuing to morph, maneuver, radicalise, and inspire its followers to carry out global attacks is not exaggerated. As poor and more powerful countries grapple with the threat of curbing terrorism, they often become myopic, losing sight of the broader context which has enabled this phenomenon to flourish in the first place. As a result governments adopt defensive or reactive approaches to tackling terrorism, as if trying to fight fire with fire.
What is being called “Islamic jihad” today is not spurred by any longstanding civilisational differences nor is it a revivalist movement based on theological principles. It is instead a modern movement fueled by the ongoing process of lopsided globalisation and lingering tendencies of imperialism and authoritarianism.
The leaders of religious extremism may seem fanatical when they use myopic theological interpretations to brainwash and recruit. However, some of the underlying grievances between these so-called Islamic jihadists, the western world, and their alleged co-conspirators within Muslim countries themselves are not due to religious or cultural differences. Analysts who study the worldviews of militant outfits point out how such groups cite common grievances of colonialism, imperialism, western control of oil, militarisation of the Middle East, and lopsided support for Israel.
Geostrategic wrangling across various Muslim countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Sudan have further created an enabling environment for many terrorist groups to flourish. The proxy warfare between Iran and other Middle Eastern countries further gives rise to a range of sectarian militant outfits.
Yet these issues are rarely discussed amongst policymakers to determine how to address these underlying grievances fueling this asymmetrical backlash in the garb of religiously-inspired violence. The western world could certainly dampen the ability of terrorist outfits to find willing recruits outraged by perceived global injustices, if it were to reconsider its foreign policies and curb its geostrategic ambitions. Muslim countries certainly cannot limit terrorist threats by importing security-obsessed narratives from abroad and applying them in piecemeal fashion, without implementing more comprehensive approaches to contend with religious militancy.
Besides injustice and occupation, poverty was labeled as another contributing factor for growing extremism by the UN General Secretary soon after 9/11 yet most international development programmes primarily use market-based approaches to address these challenges. The privatisation of social services or high-interest micro-loans can do little to challenge the unequal relations between the haves and have-nots within the “developing world”. Market-led approaches may boost global trade or promote top-heavy economic growth, but they also remain hard-pressed to address the historical injustices of colonial appropriation and slavery which continue to impoverish the global South.
Unless leaders take a harder look at addressing the underlining causes of glaring marginalisation, inequities and the resulting discontent, the manipulation of religion in bids to challenge the status quo will remain hard to suppress.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 6th, 2019.
Militant groups claiming to be inspired by religion (Islam in this case) are now varied and abundant. Most groups are localised, wrangling amongst themselves. Some have the ability to traverse into neighbouring countries. Only a few have global ambitions, such as the IS.
The risk of the IS continuing to morph, maneuver, radicalise, and inspire its followers to carry out global attacks is not exaggerated. As poor and more powerful countries grapple with the threat of curbing terrorism, they often become myopic, losing sight of the broader context which has enabled this phenomenon to flourish in the first place. As a result governments adopt defensive or reactive approaches to tackling terrorism, as if trying to fight fire with fire.
What is being called “Islamic jihad” today is not spurred by any longstanding civilisational differences nor is it a revivalist movement based on theological principles. It is instead a modern movement fueled by the ongoing process of lopsided globalisation and lingering tendencies of imperialism and authoritarianism.
The leaders of religious extremism may seem fanatical when they use myopic theological interpretations to brainwash and recruit. However, some of the underlying grievances between these so-called Islamic jihadists, the western world, and their alleged co-conspirators within Muslim countries themselves are not due to religious or cultural differences. Analysts who study the worldviews of militant outfits point out how such groups cite common grievances of colonialism, imperialism, western control of oil, militarisation of the Middle East, and lopsided support for Israel.
Geostrategic wrangling across various Muslim countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Sudan have further created an enabling environment for many terrorist groups to flourish. The proxy warfare between Iran and other Middle Eastern countries further gives rise to a range of sectarian militant outfits.
Yet these issues are rarely discussed amongst policymakers to determine how to address these underlying grievances fueling this asymmetrical backlash in the garb of religiously-inspired violence. The western world could certainly dampen the ability of terrorist outfits to find willing recruits outraged by perceived global injustices, if it were to reconsider its foreign policies and curb its geostrategic ambitions. Muslim countries certainly cannot limit terrorist threats by importing security-obsessed narratives from abroad and applying them in piecemeal fashion, without implementing more comprehensive approaches to contend with religious militancy.
Besides injustice and occupation, poverty was labeled as another contributing factor for growing extremism by the UN General Secretary soon after 9/11 yet most international development programmes primarily use market-based approaches to address these challenges. The privatisation of social services or high-interest micro-loans can do little to challenge the unequal relations between the haves and have-nots within the “developing world”. Market-led approaches may boost global trade or promote top-heavy economic growth, but they also remain hard-pressed to address the historical injustices of colonial appropriation and slavery which continue to impoverish the global South.
Unless leaders take a harder look at addressing the underlining causes of glaring marginalisation, inequities and the resulting discontent, the manipulation of religion in bids to challenge the status quo will remain hard to suppress.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 6th, 2019.