Terrorism has hit Tunisia once again, and hard, while the voices condemning the terrorists and calling for them to be fought have increased. However, what is visible to the public eye regarding this terrorist operation and others like it explains nothing about them.
Those who commit terrorist acts are usually killed in the process. It is as if they deliberately want to bury the truth with them, along with the victims, whether they are military officials, security officials or foreign tourists.
After each atrocity, the voices of condemnation grow louder and make baseless accusations. Islam is always put in the dock and the government announces new measures to combat terrorism, some of which remain as ink on a paper while others complicate the security situation due to poor execution. This is followed by a media storm in which the truth is lost and the blood of the victims is distributed amongst the political tribes. Hence, the situation is back to square one until another attack surprises everyone again; amid all of the chaos and noise, nothing is actually understood.
Every time, the terrorists’ “black box” keeps its secrets to itself. We know nothing about the mastermind behind the operation, and nothing about who provided the intelligence that determined the target, location, timing and means of execution. All we have to go on are superficial conclusions based on religious extremism and social marginalisation. Then there is usually a call for a national conference on terrorism in which they talk about terrorism per se, but never about the real terrorists who are monitoring the discussions behind the scenes.
I believe that the media’s policy for dealing with terrorism, as well as the measures adopted by the executive authority, consciously or unconsciously fuel terrorism. They strengthen the ranks of the terrorists rather than weaken them; combine mistakes in diagnosing the phenomenon with mistakes in addressing it. Indeed, they provide terrorists with reasons to carry on.
Media policy
The focal point of the media policy is to shed light on those who execute the attacks rather than those behind them. Since the terrorists’ appearance and discourse portray them as being affiliated with extremist religious groups, most media outlets adopt the approach of fighting religious extremism by being extremist against religion. There have been calls to shut down some mosques on suspicion of providing physical or moral support to extremists, without determining clear standards or criteria for classifying such mosques. One media personality went as far as to say on live television, “Our bars are more honourable than your mosques.” This was very controversial.
There have even been calls to close Qur’an-memorisation schools for children that do not respect the law. The question is why are they being shut down after a terrorist act? Why weren’t they shut down earlier if there was something wrong with them? What is the secret behind linking the Qur’an and terrorism? Is it the desire to expand the circle of accusations to include all political actors in the name of Islam?
Such extreme media discourse contributes directly to strengthening the popular incubators for terrorism, rather than dismantling them. While one effective means of the latter is allowing moderate and balanced Islamic discourse to respond to and discuss extremist proposals, there is no way to combat extremist religious discourse with extremist discourse against religion and those acting in its name.
If the final conclusion about the media policy reached by peaceful Muslims who have no relation to so-called jihadi Islam is that most of the media outlets have a problem with religion per se and not just religious terrorism, then what conclusion would be reached by those who believe in the traditional interpretation of religion? Therefore, despite the fact that the adopted media policy promotes anti-terror slogans, it gives terrorism fuel and a suitable framework within which it can expand its influence,
Security policy
It is natural to confront terrorism by intensifying security campaigns against it and monitoring all suspicious behaviour, but it is also important for such accountability to be applied to all citizens. Moreover, this should be done out of patriotic motives rather than financial rewards to those who provide information leading to the arrest of terrorists, which is what the Tunisian government wants to do.
If public services are put in the circle of financial rewards and benefits, then the service will be paid to the highest bidders, and we know that those sponsoring terrorism have large financial resources. However, all of these efforts will not bear fruit if a judicial follow-up is not carried out with regards to the security agencies known for dealing with corrupt businessmen.
The first priority in security work must be to separate the terrorist network from security officials providing it with intelligence information, without which criminal activity would be impossible. It is no secret how terrorism has been used to serve financial mafias and political agendas.
It is unreasonable for some, including security officials, to talk about the security breaches that occurred without this leading to reforms within the security agencies to rid them of the corrupt elements therein. The ease with which the terrorists execute their plans and achieve their goals is alarming. It is enough to find a small group working with these terrorists in order for all security strategies to unravel.
Terrorism incubator
Those who believe that the fight against terrorism is most effective when we sacrifice freedom are mistaken. The first battle that must be won against terrorism is the dismantlement of its popular incubator and this is only possible by means of people who are proud of their freedom and dignity, as well as their affiliation and support for the country that provides them with security and food; a country that “has fed them, [saving them] from hunger and made them safe, [saving them] from fear.”(Qur’an, 106:4)
Terrorism will gain more when the fight against corruption is believed to be a false battle. In his speech following the terrorist attack that took place in Sousse, the Tunisian president went as far as considering the “Where is the oil” campaign, which calls for transparency in the energy sector and disclosure of corruption within the sector, to be a direct cause of terrorism.
The call to reduce the margin of personal freedom, which is the most precious gain of the revolution, is the greatest gift presented to the terrorists. It boils the issue down to two options: tyranny or terrorism. Such calls help to provide an appropriate base for young people to be involved in a culture of terrorism in order to get rid of the perceived tyranny. The only thing more heinous than terrorism is its use as an excuse to restore oppressive government policies.
National unity remains a necessity to confront the threat of terrorism, but does national unity have any sort of meaning when the left-wing continues to accuse moderate Islam of supporting terrorism? Meanwhile, moderate Muslims continue to make accusations indiscriminately against the religious extremists and the members of Democratic Constitutional Rally, which continue to look for a political cover that they never had to begin with, accusing everyone implicitly and explicitly.
In addition to the “television platforms”, which have all become legitimate means of prosecuting Islam and Muslims, now moderate Muslims are being considered extremists in the eyes of others. If mutual trust and good faith are not established amongst all the parties, then there is no hope of winning the battle against terrorism. It isn’t possible for the Tunisian political class to succeed in its war against terrorism while it is weaving and fabricating charges and accusations against others. The Qur’anic verse, “Their violence among themselves is severe. You think they are together, but their hearts are diverse” (Qur’an, 59:14) applies to them.
If there is a serious and real will to fight terrorism, then the political actors and those acting within civil society must review themselves radically and get rid of their current political legacy, which is based on the rule of “the end justifies the means”.
Translated from Al-Jazeera net, 30 June, 2015
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.