Everyone except liberals are political extremists. Thoughts on political violence and ideology
Perhaps a better place to start with terrorism and political direct action is to ask “why violence” rather than to ask “why extremism”.
Words. Extremist words. This is the problem. If only we could stymie those who use such words, then we could look forward to a thousand years of peace, love and understanding. All under the benign gaze of a caring state dedicated to upholding the righteous order of things. Britain leaders have, in an act of great wisdom, set our great nation on a course for those years of tranquillity, happiness and safety. All beginning with (as these matters do) the noble enterprise of defining what we mean by those extremist words.
“Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
The new and, apparently, “narrower” definition of extremism represents as broad an understanding of the idea as could be achieved without simply saying ‘you are all suspects, we don’t trust any of you, and everything you say is infected with bad ideas’. But it is, according to the Labour politician bizarrely chosen by a Conservative government as their expert on extremism, about:
“...those who may not use violence directly yet target our core values, so it is welcome that this updated definition includes those who seek to undermine or replace liberal democracy.”
What we witness here isn’t a definition of extremism but a sort of Test Act where people are required to declare that ‘liberal democracy’ is the only true understanding of democracy and, by inference, that all other views of democracy - Marxist, conservative, anarchist - are definitionally ‘extremist’. Somebody who grinning prettily from a TV sofa says “I’m literally a communist” is also, under this definition, literally an extremist because orthodox (and quite a lot of the more heterodox) Marxism is unquestionably a belief that liberal parliamentary democracy should be violently overthrown so as to usher in a form of government that is specifically not a liberal democracy. I appreciate that a lot of Marxists fudge that bit with guns, gulags and mass murder because it is a bit icky but it remains the case that Marx & Engels expected their utopia to arrive through violence:
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.”
It is hard not to read The Communist Manifesto and conclude anything other than that its authors were promoting an “...ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance…” intended to “...overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy…”. Yet, and this is important, the definition of extremism promoted by the current Conservative government was not intended to allow the exclusion of Marxists from the corridors of power or the referral of Marxist teachers to the Prevent programme for re-education. The Prime Minister stood outside Number 10 and told us that the problem is not the prospect of communist revolution or the actions of those who promote that revolution but rather people ``taking advantage” of “concerns” to promote “attacks on democracy”. The address was, as many observed at the time, more vague and less helpful than was necessary in a response to rising antisemitism and support for the actions of proscribed terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
There was a time when the ideas that underlie liberal democracy were seen as the ideas of dangerous revolutionaries. As far as conservatism has any founding documents (I don’t believe it does), Edmund Burke’s impassioned response to the French revolution is one of them. Burke was utterly opposed to the idea of a liberal democracy and that revolutionary principle of universal suffrage and popular sovereignty. Many conservatives, even a few still clinging hopefully to the wreckage of the British Conservative Party, see Burke as a guide. I can only assume these conservatives are dangerous extremists for believing in a constitutional monarchy, the importance of the House of Lords, and that sovereignty rests with the King in Parliament not with the people en masse.
So far we have stuck to politics (I am reminded again of J R R Tolkien’s anarchism letter to his son, clearly promoting extremism) but what of other ideologies that “negate” the fundamental rights of others? It was clear to everyone listening to Rishi Sunak’s extremism speech that the ideology our Prime Minister was careful to skirt round was the ideology that lies behind the majority of terrorist incidents in Britain: militant political islam. Everybody knows, even those who for reasons that escape me deny this, that there is an element within the Muslim world that is violent and intolerant, opposed to the fundamental rights of women, and believes that democracy is unnecessary because all revealed truth about how to govern is contained within the Quran and other words of God written down by Mohammed’s scribes.
We will soon, however, see that a Muslim who actively promotes violent direct action on the basis that this is what the Quran tells him is right is both an extremist under the government’s definition and also protected from such criticism by the approved definition of Islamophobia. Even couched in the flowery, faux-ancient language so loved by bearded islamists with strong Blackburn or Bradford accents, there’s no doubt that even mainstream Islam isn’t all that keen on the liberal bit of liberal democracy. These men often genuinely believe that their idea of ‘modesty’ should be enforced on women as it is in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
But all religions, even the woke liberal Church of England, contain people who absolutely and fervently believe in removing rights from others and (one hopes given the theology) that law-giving and authority derives from god not from the vanity of man. Orthodox Jews (and Christians by inheritance) have those tablets of stone carried down from Mount Sinai by Moses. Democracy isn’t mentioned once in these laws nor is the idea that the law of God can be mutated by the choices of men. Jesus Christ had nothing much to say about elections, human rights or popular sovereignty, dismissing it saying ‘render unto Caesar’ and with a constant reminder of his Father’s kingdom (presumably not a liberal democracy). So bible centred Christians and observant Jews are, by definition, extremists just like the bearded Imam ranting about not mixing with women.
I don’t think for a second that the government’s new definition of extremism (at the same time ‘broader’ and ‘narrower’ than earlier definitions) will be used to run Marxist sociologists out of universities or to attack religious belief and observance. But we should be concerned that a future government will target mainstream conservative ideas. Not because such ideas are violent but because those liberals in that government choose to focus on alleged “hatred” or “intolerance”. This is most likely in debate around such subjects as immigration, women’s rights and perhaps abortion or euthanasia. Mainstream conservative views about limiting how many and who comes to the UK will undoubtedly form the basis for political attacks. As will support for less easy abortion, opposition to assisted suicide, and the view that women can’t have a penis. By including the word ‘liberal’ we are presented with the illiberal and intolerant circumstance where one ideology (liberal democracy, however defined) is presented by authority as beyond challenge. And, in doing this, any idea that can be shoe-horned into the definition - especially from the political right - will get caught in the trap of ‘extremism’ and its proponents dismissed (perhaps literally in some cases).
By focusing on extremism all we do is create opportunity for the politically cynical and the ambitious bully, we do almost nothing to reduce violence and terrorism because, while ideology is a prerequisite of terrorism (if not necessarily terror), those inclined to violence will simply seek out other ideas and activities that valorise their love of violence. This could be politics, it could be religion, or it could be Coventry City or Leeds United. Targeting extremism, especially in the manner of this new definition, does not reduce the risks of political violence, intimidation or terrorism. Indeed as Mike Martin, a visiting fellow at King’s College London’s War Studies department observed:
“...an overwhelming majority of those with extremist thoughts, far more than 99%, do not commit violent actions. What’s more, extremist thought, even were it adequately definable in a society that values free speech, is a very poor predictor of violent action. Defining extremism in this way lumps the supposed thinkers of extremism together with those targeted by the government for their criminal activity – actors of extremism.”
At the core of the problem here is the decidedly authoritarian view that the way to reduce terrorism and violence is to target the ideologies that, in the minds of authorities, promote terrorism and violence. We should perhaps, while allowing ourselves the pleasure of criticising those unpleasant ideas, focus instead on the reason why violence persists in our society. We could ask why so many islamist terrorists are ‘radicalised’ in prisons - do we really believe they became true believers or was it that the more violent aspects of jihad simply appeal to someone seeking validation for their love of violence? Neal Stevenson created such a character, Abdallah Jones, in his novel ‘Reamde’ and leaves our understanding of his motive open but it is clear throughout that, whatever his deeply held beliefs, Jones really enjoyed violence.
It is likely that, because people in politics and government see everything in terms of the processes within politics and government, the focus on extremism is an example of ‘Hammer-Nail Syndrome’ rather than a considered analysis of why violence persists. Political violence must be a consequence of politics not the reverse. Yet it remains true that vastly more violence occurs in the search for money, sex and self-gratification than does so in the pursuit of political ends. Perhaps a better place to start with terrorism and political direct action is to ask “why violence” rather than to ask “why extremism”.