How Should Democracies Fight Terrorism?

by Patti Tamara Lenard

In the wake of major terrorist attacks, calls for ever more draconian policies to prevent further outrages are common. Such responses raise the pressing is it possible to effectively fight terrorism while respecting democratic values of equality and trust?
 
Examining recent examples of terrorist atrocities – from the murder of Muslims in New Zealand and Jews in Pittsburgh to the Charlie Hebdo attacks – Patti Tamara Lenard considers how democracies should tackle terrorism within the constraints imposed by democratic principles. For many, the tension between liberty and security necessarily means that the only way to protect security is to sacrifice liberty―but Lenard rejects this claim, and instead argues that security’s goal should be to keep all citizens equally secure in the face of terrorist threats. Critiquing existing policies, from exile to racial profiling, she outlines what ethical counter-terrorism policies should look like, arguing for strategies that respect equality and thereby maintain trust among diverse communities in democratic states.
 
This erudite guide to how states might ethically fight terrorism will be essential reading for any student or scholar of public affairs, security, counter-terrorism, and democratic governance.

140 pages, Hardcover

Published August 24, 2020

Reviews

[Andriana · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written account of the moral dilemma democracies are faced with, namely whether collective security has priority over individual rights (and consequently individual security). The critical question posed here is why a community's security should be dependent on certain individuals sacrificing their rights. More specifically, why is it that more often than not these sacrifices are made by minority groups?

A cornerstone of our democratic states,
equality is tackled in a refreshing way in this book
under the banner: in a democracy rights are equally protected for all citizens. The state's duty is the provision of security in an egalitarian way respecting everybody's rights and thus making the assumption that some citizens' rights are violable highly undemocratic. The dilemma takes on a new form: a state is truly democratic when it guarantees its citizens' security or when it safeguards their equality?

I was particularly intrigued by the following paradox: the public is eager to accept the harshest punishments for suspected or convicted terrorists because they threaten the core values, institutions and morals of our democracies. While we will go to any lengths to protect our democratic way of life, we are at the same time all too eager to denounce its essence (upholding equal rights for all) in order to punish or deter terrorists.

Lenard makes a case for just punishment aka equality in punishment based on the equal (not morally) status all citizens partake of in a democracy. In principle, when punishment is completed, the punished can reenter society. For this reason, capital punishment, disenfranchisement, rescinding one's citizenship are all ruled out. They are ruled out because they are morally inappropriate to democracies being final, irreversible and denying equal democratic citizenship.

As for prevention, the Security Test is introduced, a useful tool applied to counter-terrorism policies such as expansion of proscribed speech, no-exit policies and surveillance programmes. Again emphasis is given to proportionality and citizens' equal rights. To my understanding, citizens are given priority in this analysis in terms of status as opposed to residents and immigrants although it would be fascinating to include everyone in such debates.

How Should Democracies Fight Terrorism has been very helpful in making sense of democratic responses to terrorism. Besides providing a comprehensive background to the debate security vs. rights, not only does it bring in original tools but it also reintroduces concepts like denationalization or racial profiling according them the significance that may have gone unnoticed.