Last updated at 2:26 PM. Friday 19 March 2010

Go to comments September 25, 2009

Rivandra Royono

The Root Cause of Terrorism? It’s Not Poverty or Lack of Education

When it comes to identifying the root cause of terrorism, many are compelled to point fingers at poverty and lack of education. The argument, in a nutshell, goes as follows: Poor, uneducated people are easily lured with promises of heaven and can be convinced to blow up other people in order to attain it.

However, the idea does not stand its ground when confronted with facts. Marc Sageman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute compiled background data of about 400 Al Qaeda members and discovered that three-quarters belonged to the middle or upper class. He further noted that the “vast majority — 90 percent — came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5 to 6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.”

Economists Efraim Benmelech of Harvard University and Claude Berrebi of the RAND Corporation also came to the same conclusion when they gathered data on Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel from 2000 to 2005. They discovered that education is very much valued in the “terrorism market.” Better educated individuals are more likely to be successful in carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks and have lower chances of getting caught.

It should also be noted that the alleged leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, had a graduate degree, while both Azahari and Noordin M Top, the masterminds of most of the major terrorist attacks over the last decade in Indonesia, were skilled engineers and scientists. None of them were poor; all three came from affluent families.

Obviously, these terrorists don’t fit the poor-and-uneducated profile. As such, simply expanding education and eradicating poverty would unlikely affect terrorist recruitment. We need to look deeper. In that light, there are at least three issues that are often overlooked, each bearing a consequence in how public policies should be shaped and how we as a community should act in countering the seeds of terrorism.

First, it’s not a coincidence that many terrorist masterminds come from countries with repressive governments, like the Arab states and, arguably, Malaysia. Repressive governments tend to bar legal avenues for voicing dissent, thus making extreme demonstrations of opposition more attractive. When the cost of legal dissent increases — due to threat of legal repercussions — the relative cost of illegal dissent is lowered. Hence terrorism becomes a viable venue.

Therefore, it’s in our interest to allow dissent. Specifically for Indonesia, we need to allow organizations like Hizbut Tahrir and the Islamic Defenders Front to exist. It doesn’t mean we should let them do whatever they want. They still have to be legally accountable for their actions; if and when they employ violence or thuggery, they have to pay for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. We should also continue voicing opposition to their radical stances and gospel of hatred. However, their right to association and voicing dissent should be recognized and upheld. Perhaps it’s worth reminding ourselves that virtually no major Indonesian terrorist has been affiliated to these legal organizations.

Second, acts of terrorism and suicide bombing require the fear of the pain involved in the act and the reservation of hurting other people to be broken. The most effective way of doing this is by psychological enforcement, most notably through an authority or peers. A common trait shared by terrorists is that they have a figure of authority that they fully and unquestionably respect. It’s also very common for prospective terrorists to join a perverse cause through preexisting social bonds with people who are already terrorists or have decided to join.

So here’s what we need to understand: An education system that puts a premium on respect for authority and discourages freethinking will produce individuals that are highly susceptible to psychological enforcement. So while simply more education may not be effective in countering terrorism, how we educate matters significantly. We need to push, not discourage, our children to question the authorities — their teachers and parents — and the majority — their friends. We need to make them comfortable to be different and to disagree. This will make them significantly less vulnerable to “brainwashing” by radical ideas.

Lastly, we should heed the findings in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s research: An overwhelming majority of the educated individuals in its sample of Al Qaeda members were engineers, architects, civil engineers and scientists. People with humanities backgrounds were grossly underrepresented. Is there anything in the humanities that make its students less susceptible to radical, narrow-minded, chauvinistic ideas? In short, the answer is yes.

Students of the humanities make a conscious effort to learn different cultures, religions and values. This leads them to respect people from all walks of life, even if they don’t necessarily agree with the values those other people hold. It’s this spirit of humanities that should be integrated in our education system. The Indonesian youth need to learn, and perhaps even experience, different values. The many live-in programs already conducted by various local NGOs to bring in students of different religious and cultural backgrounds to stay with families in Aceh, Lombok and Papua should be expanded. It’s high time for us to not only tolerate diversity, but to embrace it.

At the end of the day, it’s really more complex than simply poverty and lack of education. If we’re really serious about addressing the root causes of terrorism, we need to uphold civil liberties, teach our children that it’s alright to question authorities and expose them to different values. That’s going to be a challenge not only for the government, but for all of us — parents, teachers, and the community. But nobody ever said addressing the roots of terrorism would be easy.

Rivandra Royono is the executive director of the Association for Critical Thinking and a consultant for the World Bank in Jakarta.



Post a comment

Login or register to post comments!

Comments

fido dido

1:58 PM September 28, 2009

Freedom of speech and association is the bedrock of a meaningful democracy as long as the right is exercised within the legal bounds. HT and FPI are a whole different breed than JI. Granted that their tactics are thuggish and intimidating but at the very least they operate in the full view of the public and the authority, and they should be punished accordingly if they cross over the threshold of violence. JI, on the other hand, is an outright terrorist organization feigning no pretense in engaging within the democratic system. While HT and Ji share the same ultimate objective in wanting to establish a SE Asian caliphate their tactics couldn't be more different. In that sense I agree with the writer that these extremist groups need to be given an outlet to air our their grievances inasmuch as they don't break the law and cause harm and injuries to others. Hate speech is still free speech, and the effective way to counter it is through well-reasoned counter-arguments and cooler heads.

Another thing the writer forgot to mention is that students of hard science - as opposed to humanities and social science - are trained to see the world in black-and-white terms. To them there is a logical formula to all the problems in the world akin to an indisputable iron-clad mathematical theorem. Social science and humanities students are trained to see the world in shades of gray and to entertain doubts as an integral part of a rigorous analysis. Similar studies have been done to gauge the political ideology of students across departments in the universities in the US and students of hard science like engineering, physics, etc are found to be much more conservative than their counterparts in humanities and social science. Disproportionate number of highly educated science fiends in a terrorist organizations is the culmination of rationalist-logical thinking gone extreme, where there can only be one possible solution to a problem, much similar to solving a mathematical problem.

aaronm

9:28 AM September 28, 2009

HT and the FPI are the modern-day equivalents of the PKI; that is they wish to subvert the constitution of this state and replace it with a different model. To that end, they should be viewed as a seditious bunch of traitors and dealt with accordingly. For if they were to achieve their ends and seize control of Indonesia, life would be intolerable for those of us who did not wish to follow their way of life.

Valkyrie

7:15 AM September 28, 2009

mileiva: I feel that you probably misunderstood what "waku" stated or maybe a typo error?

However, on this premise, I beg to differ and cannot agree that "Ignorance is Bliss." Education is of paramount importance and should not be disregarded.

The "fortunates" are able to attend good schools and my greatest concern are the public schools that are not adequately funded by the government. Just look at the many delapidated buildings some children have to study in. The government MUST provide better and well equipped schools. Of course the factor of good and qualified teachers has to be an integral part of it. I am wondering how many Teachers Training colleges there are in Indonesia. Here comes the "crunch"..... are our teachers validated and qualified? Have they received formal training on teaching methods etc., etc.,

A teacher is a person who educates others. Right! How reliable is this statement in reference to Indonesian teachers?

mileiva

6:41 PM September 27, 2009

I would agree with the notion that the 'root-cause' of terrorism is not poverty or lack of education. Poverty and lack of (quality) education contribute to the 'spread' of terrorism as pointed out by waku.

RR's article is a good trigger for us to think critically about our society and to support the efforts of providing more conducive spaces to voice out our critical thoughts.

Being a country with a massive diversity, we should be able to utilize such potential to shape a society with high tolerance and nurturing open-minded character. Live-in programs, pointed out by RR, is a good tangible and feasible example of what many actors in the society (parents, school, NGO, government) can support.

Valkyrie

10:50 AM September 27, 2009

RR - You must be really out of your "freaking" mind to allow their existence. They're a pack of radicals and extremists who should be dunked into the foulest of cesspool available.

Does RR really want their presence? NO Indonesian terrorist has been proven to be affiliated with these legal organizations? Give me some truth RR or are you waiting for these embryos to hatch before you change your mind? Does your sentiments also support that "pervert" old man in Ngruki?

Why not do a psychological profile of all these "mad" men and see what they have in common.

waku

7:46 PM September 26, 2009

It seems that the writer has done some good researches for his writing.

In order to have a complete picture and to prevent from jumping into premature conclusions, it will be very useful to have broader researches locally.

Each party involved in terrorism has his own paradigm and motive for his actions.

To some parties, such as some suicide bombers, poverty and lack of education are indeed the root cause.

This is something that can only be understood if the writer also does deep research locally, not only does a "helicopter view".

girvanus

11:51 AM September 26, 2009

You're defending FPI and Hizbut Tahrir? True that so far they haven't resorted to large-scale acts of terrorism, but all their "thuggery" as you call it, is by definition, an "act of terror'. It's only a matter of time before they start blowing up buildings...and people.

All organizations that spread and advocate hatred and condemnation of other people should be quelled. Especially those who demonstrate their hatred by beating people up with clubs and cleavers like FPI.