Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Liberal secularism is the answer to combatting terrorism

By Cameron Riley - posted Friday, 2 September 2005


In Muslim nations that go to the ballot box, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, extremist political parties get crushed by voters. Those extremists are not able to earn more than a small per cent of the vote. Most people want good government, the electricity to work, the trains to run on time, low crime and so forth. The people are wise, and with a proper outlet to let that wisdom flow to government, superior outcomes prevail. Voters choose secular political parties over religious ones, and moderate parties over extremists.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two best examples of failed states which breed extremist views. Both use the state to advocate an intolerant religious monoculture that is the basis for their authority. To reject the state, dissenters also reject the monoculture by choosing extremism. Lately Australia is establishing the "National Security State" and expanding the "Shadow State". In addition the Australian conservative commentariat is seeking to establish a monoculture. This places us closer to the conditions that make Saudi Arabia such a problem.

Got secularism?

Much attention has been focused on Muslims as the perpetrators of terrorism. This assumes that Muslims are a homogeneous group, dominated by violent fundamental beliefs. This is incorrect, and a lazy stereotype. It is only on the fringes of Islam that there is a conflict with modernism, but this is not unique to Islam: witness the Christian reaction to stem cell research in the United States. Democratic nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have overwhelmingly adopted secular governments when given the power to vote.

Advertisement

Indonesia contains the world's largest Muslim population in a nation-state. Nearly 80 per cent of its 220 million population identify themselves as Muslim. In the 2004 Indonesian elections the Islamic party, Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP), was only able to gain 8 per cent of the vote in Parliament and 3.1 per cent in the presidential race. In both cases losing out in majorities to secular candidates and parties. The Islamic Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) managed 10 per cent of the parliamentary vote.

Bangladesh has a population of 144 million. Approximately 83 per cent of the population view themselves as Muslim, with Hindu being the next largest religion. In the 2001 elections, the Islamic political parties were not able to gain a majority, with the conservative Bangladesh Jatiyabadi Dal and social-democratic Bangladesh Awami League earning 87 per cent of the vote combined.

Malaysia has a population of 23 million with approximately 63 per cent identifying themselves as Muslim. In the Dewan Rekyat (House of Representatives) election of 2004 the main secular party, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu, collected 64 per cent of the vote. The Islamic Party, Parti Islam se Malaysia, managed 15 per cent and the democratic party, Parti Tindakan Demokratik, got 9 per cent.

As the election results in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia show, the people are wise and choose secular government over religious government. The major problem is many nations that mix religion and state, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, is that they are either monarchies, autocracies or non-functioning democracies where voters are given no choice other than the existing ruling party.

Salafism and Saudi Arabia

Salafism or Wahhabism is an Islamic movement that traces its origins back to the theologian, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in the 16th century. Salafism seeks to purify Islam by returning Muslims to the original principles of Islam. Salafism seeks to remove innovations in religious practice and idolatry (polytheism). Muhammad bin Saud established the House of Saud, which today rules over Saudi Arabia. Saud married bin Abdul's daughter and combined his rule with Salafism to establish wider legitimacy for the Sauds. Salafism was not a widely popular religious movement in Islam until it was propagated by the House of Saud, especially in the latter half of the 20th century with Saudi Arabia's immense oil wealth.

The 1970s saw a different dynamic enter the Middle East, many of the secular regimes, such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq failed in their promise, and became single party states designed to maintain the power of the present leaders. The autocratic governments also stifled all dissent. Opposition was either forced out of the country, driven underground into silence, or into violent extremism. Iran took the third path and a Shia theocracy came to power through revolution. Iran used the wealth and power of the state to expand the influence of their religious doctrine through the Middle East.

Advertisement

Salafism is based on Sunni beliefs. The Shia and Sunni denominations of Islam are the two largest and represent a sectarian split based on who the successor was to the Prophet Muhammad. In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia used the wealth of the state to expand Salafist teachings. From the 9-11 Commission:

In the 1980s, awash in sudden oil wealth, Saudi Arabia competed with Shia Iran to promote its Sunni fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism. The Saudi Government, always conscious of its duties as the custodian of Islam's holiest places, joined with wealthy Arabs from the Kingdom and other states bordering the Persian Gulf in donating money to build mosques and religious schools that could preach and teach their interpretation of Islamic doctrine.

The 1980s saw the expansion of the madrassa. These are Islamic schools, most of which teach a non-violent purist Islamic tradition. Unfortunately, a significant number act as recruiting agents for violent extremism. Many of the violent madrassa were in Pakistan where mujahideen where trained for the Afghan war against the Soviets.

Violent extremism and Saudi Arabia

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi national until Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship. He came from the wealthy and large bin Laden family which has also disowned him due to his involvement in Al-Qaida and terrorism. Al-Qaida came from the mujahideen operations in Soviet-invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden established the ideologically driven group to create conflict between Islam and the West. Al-Qaida used terrorism for this purpose.

Bin Laden set up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where it was believed that in the mid-1990s 70 per cent of recruits in the camps were from Saudi Arabia. This may have been related to bin Laden's offer of mujahideen to protect Saudi Arabia being rejected in 1991 and bin Laden soon after issuing a self-styled fatwa condemning the House of Saud and demanding Muslims drive American forces out of Saudi Arabia. The high number of Saudi nationals being involved in Al-Qaida translated into the September 11 attacks with 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi Arabian.

The recent Brookings Institute Iraq Index publication has another interesting statistic. Of foreign insurgents killed in Iraq, Saudi Arabians account for 68 per cent, with 94 killed. It is estimated that the Iraqi insurgents number approximately 20,000. Of these around 1,000 of them are foreign fighters. In comparison to other nations, Saudi Arabia is over-represented when it comes to violent extremism.

Secular liberalism

The Saudi Arabian example shows that secular liberalism is not the problem, it is state-supported religion in autocratic regimes that is the main cause of disruption and disturbance in the world. Saudi Arabia is one of the more extreme examples. Disaffected Saudis are unable to change the state through voting, their monarchy being totally opposed to any form of popular merit. The Saudi schools teach a non-tolerant form of Salafism, and that is exported by Saudi money to madrassas internationally.

Since the state and Salafism are entwined, those that reject the state must also reject the Saudi form of Sunnism, often doing so by embracing a more radical, extreme and violent interpretation of Salafism. Adding to this is the demographics for the Middle East. About 60 per cent of the Middle East is under the age of 24. This leads to a massive problem that is having global repercussions.

Once again Indonesia is the great modern hope, through the people voting their own will, Indonesia has established a secular democracy embracing secular and liberal democratic traditions. It is important to note, it was the wisdom of the people that led Indonesia to this position. In 1999 the Indonesia people overthrew the Suharto dictatorship through a popular uprising, and then voted in secular, rather than religious parties.

Indonesians wanted good government, and gave themselves the environment to avoid the problems that Saudi Arabia, Iran and other parts of the Middle East face. When Indonesia was wracked by terrorism, it was quickly squashed through trials conducted openly and publicly. Rather than military trials which are conducted privately, the civil judicial system has popular legitimacy and the involvement of jurors.

The anti-reformation

Labor and Liberalism won in the 20th century. The major parties in Australia are social-democratic. Both left and right continue to expand the state and social services. Under the supposedly conservative Liberal government in Australia, the percent of GDP collected by the government in tax has increased from 26 per cent to nearly 35 per cent. Liberalism also won. Multiculturalism, which is a logical outcome of maximum liberty, was accepted: as was economic liberty through economic rationalism.

After September 11, the United States decided to pursue terrorism as a military problem. The United Kingdom and Australia were quick to follow. All three nations realigned their domestic focus to what appears to a permanent "National Security State". No longer are cities, or nations defined by their society, their culture, their economy or their liberty; they are now defined by how secure they are. Advocates of the National Security State go as far as to claim that a city or nation that is insecure is a failed one.

Australia, the US and the UK have expanded the private space of government by giving new powers to the "shadow state". Western nations have used terrorism and the "National Security State" to collapse the public actions of government and hide them from public view.

In the US, the Transport Security Agency has laws that the public must follow, but cannot read. Laws are now becoming secret. This makes them impossible to follow. The PATRIOT Act allows the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to act without civil oversight, or the knowledge of the suspect. The Act also enables the mixing of domestic and foreign intelligence; a result of the US deciding on a military solution to terrorism.

Attacking speech and liberty

The US has not acted to outlaw free speech, but the UK which has recently faced home-grown terrorism, now is. Foreigners that engage in hateful speech can be deported. From a BBC article:

New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record. Consultation on the plans will finish this month.

Implied in many of the measures is that multiculturalism has failed, and that the "National Security State" must be a unitary nation-state with one culture, one central government; and one purpose - security. Australian commentators have led the attack on multiculturalism, seeing secular liberalism as the feeding and breeding ground for terrorism. This rabid rhetoric is used as an excuse to establish the unitary "National Security State", Miranda Devine writes:

Kowtowing to the unreasonable demands of intolerant minorities trying to impose their will on the majority is not going to safeguard Australia from "fanatical religious hate, exclusion, death and terror", as Parker seems to think. Quite the opposite.

Concepts of tolerance, freedom and loving one's neighbour as oneself don't exist in a vacuum, any more than "ethics" exist without a moral framework.

Trying to erase the long-established culture of Australia, permanently rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and replacing it with vapid, secularist nothingness is not going to help. It simply creates a vacuum for radical Islam to rush in and fill.

This is authoritarian anti-liberal nonsense at its absolute worst. Devine's advocacy for one culture and one nation fail, simply because her vision of what constitutes a viable society, culture and nation cannot be achieved without government intervention. Lack of liberty is an unnatural state for a society and requires high energy and cost by the government to enforce. This is why autocracies are doomed to inevitable failure, the more liberties that are taken, the higher the cost to the society and the more energy that is dissipated in maintaining authoritarianism.

Defeating extremism

Multiculturalism is a natural outgrowth of liberty. A monoculture can only be enforced through the coercion of the government. This comes at a cost; the reduction of civil liberties, discrimination against diversity, an intolerance for dissent and the increase in the shadow state as all authority collapses into the central government. These would place Australia closer to components that make failed states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran such hotbeds for extremist ideology.

The answer to terrorism in Australia is the secular liberalism of Australian republicanism. Maximum liberty, tempered by individual rights and bound by inclusive and responsive minimal government is the best means to defeat terrorism and the environment that breeds and amplifies extremism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Cameron Riley is founder of South Sea Republic. He authored the book, The K-fivical Cam, and has co-authored South Sea Republic Volume One as well as the recently released book, Patterns of Liberty.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Cameron Riley

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy