Heated debates during the three-day international conference on “Democratic Security in Times of Extremism and Violence” hosted by the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Cairo underscored the considerable discrepancy in opinion among conference participants on the approach to take towards safeguarding human rights and civic liberties in the context of combatting extremism and terrorism in the world. All democratic societies are based on a set of basic civic liberties and essential freedoms. One cardinal legal principle is that a crime is an act, not a thought. Its perpetrators are punishable only after committing it. On this basis, legal and judicial procedures were formulated so as to ensure that the judiciary could only punish perpetrators of a crime after sufficient proof is established of their guilt. However, terrorism poses a challenge of a different nature because people want their governments to forestall the occurrence of terrorist acts, to abort terrorists' plans before they can wreak damage and kill. Such demands are what led democratic nations such as Germany, France and Belgium, which experienced terrorist attacks recently, to grant broad powers to policing agencies in the framework of counter-terrorist efforts. Such measures inevitably raise essential concerns in these and other societies regarding principles of freedom and how to strike a balance between security needs and constitutionally guaranteed liberties. It is a dilemma that brings to mind the famous US Patriot Act. The anti-terrorist act promulgated in the US in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks gives the government powers to wage “war on terrorism” by facilitating investigations and other policing and military measures. Soon followed preventive detentions, recourse to torture, systematic killings using drones, practices that aroused widespread condemnation for their unwarranted violations of the sanctity of human life and freedoms. The international community and world public opinion was faced with crucial questions such as: How can countries strike a balance between security and freedom? Should this balance vary from one country to the next? The constitutions of all civilised nations provide guarantees for the protection of basic human and civil rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to privacy and the right to demonstrate. Such provisions translate the central belief of democratic societies that human beings are endowed with fundamental and inalienable rights and these must be safeguarded at all times, including in times of war against terrorism. However, this war necessitates special laws that grant broader powers to security agencies so that they can be more effective in monitoring terrorist activities and quicker in preventing terrorist attacks. Such laws could lead to erosions of the scope of individual freedoms and even to encroachments on the freedom of movement of inhabitants of a city or a particular urban quarter. Undoubtedly a useful tool for working out how to strike a balance between security exigencies and the need to safeguard personal rights is to consider previous experiences around the world, especially before the events of September 2001. For instance, how did the British government manage this question as it responded to the Irish Republican Army and its members? How did the Columbian government deal with it with respect to FARC? Closer to home, it would also be useful to consider the case of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria during the 1990s as many countries around the world at the time were horrified by the massacres perpetrated against the Algerian people by the extremists. The foregoing cases and others form a body of cumulative experience that merits closer study in light of our central question here. In general, it is universally agreed that the security measures to fight terrorism are a temporary condition. Extremism has existed throughout all eras of history and eliminating it can only be accomplished by identifying the deeper causes of its spread. Perhaps one of the foremost causes is the lack of a clear ladder for social and economic mobility in some countries. This may be due to the widespread prevalence in some countries of nepotism and favouritism on the basis of family, tribal or ethnic affiliations over qualifications and merit, a phenomenon that might cause such intense frustration to many talented and intelligent people in some societies that leads them to turn to violence as a means to avenge themselves against society. Other causes might be a drive to pursue the dream of a missing paradise on earth or the search for an identity in failed states or as a member of an immigrant community in countries that marginalise immigrants. The causes of terrorism are complex. Religion is often a vehicle for shaping and expressing it. Whatever the cause, curbing and defeating extremist movements begins with remedying the problems conducive to extremist thought and behaviour. The writer is head of the Central Projects and Services Sector at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
