Tunisia shouldn't make the same counter-terrorism mistakes as the West

The shock of the massacre in Sousse was such that we should not be surprised at the all-party call to support the Tunisian army and security services. Security and unity is, after all, what Tunisia needs right now.

The response from Tunis has caused some alarm. Soon after the incident the government called for 80 mosques to be shut down on the basis that “extremist preaching” was taking place therein. We have heard calls like this before. They are the hallmark of the narrative that an “Islamic ideology” causes radicalisation, but such an understanding has not made things any better in the world. In fact, the opposite is the case.

Most Muslims would argue that the vast majority of those who have joined ISIS are extremely ignorant about Islam. The Tunisian killer is no different; look at his profile: his lifestyle, it has been reported, revolved around sex and drugs before carrying out his terrorism and he did not exhibit any signs of religious conservativism. So why have Tunisian officials used his act of terrorism as an excuse to close mosques?

Cracking down on ideology will never work. Western governments have tried to do the exact same thing. It has not stopped people from joining ISIS but it has alienated people and made them more vulnerable to radicalisation. Western counter-terrorism policy has largely created a general suspicion of Islam and, in particular, anyone who practises their faith in any serious way, even though the evidence suggests that other factors are more important in the radicalisation process.

British think tank Claystone has highlighted the inherent problem of reducing the complex issue of radicalisation to a simple set of values. According to the Brennan Centre for Justice, based at New York University School of Law, the path to terrorism is “neither predictable, nor religious.” An MI5 document that was reported in 2008 illustrated that those suspected of terrorism or who carried out terrorist acts were far from being religious zealots, did not practice their faith regularly and even struggled with basic religious literacy.

ISIS was born in the political vacuum in Iraq. As soon as America and its allies declared “mission accomplished” following their 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein’s henchmen, with their secular pan-Arab ideology of Baathism, were plotting their comeback. They set up their own militia that later became “Islamic State”. It was the political reality of the Western occupation and an Iraqi death toll of genocidal proportions that enabled this militia to attract support. It was the group’s “anti-imperialist” rhetoric and presence that helped it to expand, not what it was called.

Disappointingly, the West’s persistent focus on theology and ideology is in spite of the strong evidence which suggests that more pragmatic issues are involved. Time and time again we hear from terrorist suspects that they chose that particular path for political reasons. Any theology, just like ISIS as a group, merely padded-out the language and means of communication, and nothing more.

Western governments always focus on the “religious” aspect because they want to avoid discussion about their foreign policy, which speaks volumes. Legislation which has followed is thus based on a false narrative which claims that Islamic beliefs and practices are themselves signs of radicalisation. In doing so, it has created suspects out of all Muslims, not least those of all backgrounds who express their concerns about living in a society being made increasingly illiberal in the name of preserving “liberty”.

The impact has been hugely counter-productive. Islamophobia has been institutionalised across Europe and Muslims, particularly young people, are more vulnerable to radicalisation. Society has become more intolerant of Muslims (and Arabs), no matter how “western” or “liberal” they may be, despite their condemnation of terrorist acts. There is no reason for Tunisia to take the same approach to counter-terrorism.

Terminology in this debate is important. There is an issue with the term “extremism”, for example; how is it defined, and by whom? The lack of an accurate and suitable definition enables governments to label and target whom they please, without genuine evidence or accountability. In Britain, Home Secretary Theresa May is facing criticism for criminalising thoughts and ideas instead of actions. Those who lived through Ben Ali’s dictatorship in Tunisia know all too well what that can lead to. It is vital for the political opposition, Ennahda, and other political parties, with the backing of the people of Tunisia to make sure that such a dark period in their history isn’t repeated.

While it goes without saying that we should support any measures to ensure that an atrocity like that in Sousse does not happen again, the erosion of civil liberties in order to fight terrorism will not only undo the benefits of the Arab Spring, but also let the terrorists win by default. Such illiberal liberalism is what Ben Ali was famous for. It’s the same kind of warped logic which enables Al-Sisi to rule Egypt today, and what an increasingly Islamophobic Europe is heading towards. This kind of “liberalism” turns a nation into a brutal autocracy with a false sense of enlightenment and moral superiority gained by the equally false perception that the Other is an inferior savage.

Tunisian society will need to hold onto its freedom whilst balancing security concerns, otherwise its democracy will implode, as Egypt’s and Libya’s have. Diversity, respect, tolerance and multiculturalism all demand societal norms that can see beyond how people look and what language they use. It is vital that Tunisia does not fall into the politics of fear.

From a security point of view, it means leading on evidence-based intelligence and not unhelpful stereotypes with racial and religious profiling at airports or elsewhere. From a socio-political perspective, it means challenging any moves made by the government which erode the liberty of the people. Economic solutions are also needed as Tunisia is already full of angry young men who feel alienated because they can’t earn an honest living (which also makes them vulnerable to radical ideas). What must be made clear is that punishing society with measures based upon a flawed understanding of radicalisation, one that blames ideology and “a strand of Islam”, will only make things worse for everyone.

It’s time for us to understand that an attack on anyone’s liberty is an attack on everyone’s liberty. A peaceful, prosperous future demands a broader search for solutions, rather than policies that will make Tunisia more isolated, vulnerable and insular in the global village. Tunisia doesn’t have to make the same mistakes as the West. Let us hope that it doesn’t; the people have suffered enough already.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.