For a review of the French debates on Islamist extremism to be exhaustive, we should mention François Burgat who comes from the “tiers-mondisme” (Third World-ist) ranks. Burgat has a wide and diversified audience of supporters – Arabs, non-Arabs, students, intellectuals, journalists, senior civil servants and so on. He also has a lot of people who dislike him. It is quite easy to focus on the violence of his writings, which more often than not ought to be classified as “ideological” or “militant” and use extreme-left “militant tactics” such as intimidation, accusations, demagogy and the caricature of opponents. The aim here will be to present his views. A good start would be to consider this sentence: “no individual […] can be raised to the rank of the ‘leader' or ‘trigger' of the revolt of part of the planet. In such an approach, accessories and mediators imperceptibly tend to become... causes.” Burgat wrote this to criticise French writer Gilles Kepel's focus on “leading intellectuals” such as Sayed Qutb or Abu Musaab Al-Suri as being behind Islamist extremism. He adds that the Islamic State (IS) group does not accept Al-Suri as an authority, implying that Kepel is not aware of this fact. However, I am not sure that Kepel ever says that these two individuals ever “triggered” anything. Instead, he says that they are “examples.” Kepel is of course well aware of the impact of social ills – he may even overestimate them. But this is not my main concern here. What is crucial is Burgat's reference to “the revolt of part of the planet.” Burgat's thesis rests on five or six assertions. First, we are witnessing a Third World and Muslim revolt, caused by the Western powers' ignoble behaviour, notably in the Middle East. Colonialism, the creation of the state of Israel, the invasion of Iraq and Western support for secular dictators are just some examples from a long list of crimes. Second, Political Islam is at least the main “true” voice of the South and probably “the South's voice.” Third, and as a result, the West deserves what it gets. Fourth, Burgat says, Political Islam is now a main actor, and it has replaced former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel-Nasser in the same legitimate struggle with the same sacred cause – the liberation from political, social and cultural alienation. Fifth, all religions have violent individuals belonging to them. And sixth, no transition to modernity will succeed in the Arab world unless it is “religious” or driven by Political Islam. Discussion of these points could be endless. I only want to say that a distinction should be drawn between “legitimate grievances” and “conceptions of the future.” Having legitimate grievances does not mean having a grand design for the future or that actual practices and discourses are acceptable. We can also point to the incoherence in what Burgat says, since the US in fact toppled a secular Arab dictator in the figure of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Everybody, including Burgat, agrees this was at the very least a serious mistake. The Egyptian people, despite Washington's “friendly advice,” also toppled former president Mohamed Morsi in the 30 June Revolution. So things could turn out to be more complicated than Burgat assumes. Telling us that “radical terrorism” is part of a wider uprising is something that at least needs clarification. Yes, we have witnessed uprisings against autocrats. But did the Islamists launch them? The evidence is at best mixed. What might lead us to believe that a great popular revolt against the West is ongoing? Burgat says two different things. First, he says, the colonial powers created ruling secular elites that scorn the Muslim populations of their own countries, do not really know them, and do not represent them, leading to dictatorship everywhere in the Arab world. The essence of “Western civilisation” is secularism, and 95 per cent of Muslims have a problem with this principle, he says, so the overwhelming majority of Muslims are closer to Islamism than they are to secularism. Second, Burgat says, the violence stems from the West and is now boomeranging. Jihadism is the “natural answer” to Western hubris. In such a world view, is it not necessary to sort out such questions as who is targeted by the “revolt of part of the planet”? Are all the practices of Muslim actors part of one great movement? Is terrorism a component of popular uprisings in the Middle East and/or Europe? Why do extremist movements kill Muslims? How should one define the jihadists' role? As a vanguard? A necessary evil? A terrible but understandable one? A disaster that threatens a noble cause? Do the jihadists represent part of the population? Why do so many Muslims not like the extremist movements? What is meant by modernity? Values? Secular tools? Democracy? Capitalism? Tools of social progress? All this seems to be irrelevant in this view. The important thing is that it is the West's fault and Islamism is the Muslim road to liberation, authenticity and modernity. I am not saying that Burgat is unable to provide in-depth analysis. He is. But this does not lead him to reconsider his general scheme. The problem lies with the world view itself. It is not true that the elites in the Arab world endorse and enforce secularism. It is not true that having a problem with secularism means advocating Political Islam. It is not true that a culture needs to be “free of foreign concepts and values” in order to be considered authentic. It is not true that the Islamists, including the moderates, have a credible “cultural project.” It is not true that those who say that culture should be authentic and therefore free of foreign contributions are always the West's foes and that secularists are always the West's friends. Consider the implications of Burgat's thesis, does it mean that we are heading towards a clash of civilisations? He would surely answer yes unless the West changes its ways. But what kind of radical change is needed? Can you plausibly placate extremists? Burgat recently attacked Kepel and fellow French writer Olivier Roy. In his view, Kepel has been trying to identify “key players” and “networks disseminating evil discourses.” This approach is not scientific, Burgat says. It is one that is more appropriate to the police. It also misses the mark as the problem is much more serious, and the fact that people accept such discourses is more revealing. Roy also does not try to discuss the legacy of the past, and he does not see the same Western sins. The writer is a professor of international relations of the College de France and visiting professor at Cairo University.
