The Relationship Between Democracy and Terrorism

The other day I questioned the basic premise behind what, by default, has become the primary justification for the Iraq War, i.e. that increased democracy leads to less fanaticism and therefore less terrorism. As Andrew Sullivan put it the other day, "democracy is the only cure," the only way to "drain the swamp of Islamo-fascism." As I said before, I would very much like to believe that this is true, but I'm not convinced there is any empirical or logical basis for it. What we've learned in the last 24 about the London bombers only heightens my skepticism. Yesterday Tony Blair said the following:

"I think we all know that security measures alone are
not going to deal with this. This is not an isolated
criminal act we are dealing with - it is an extreme and
evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous
misinterpretation of the religion of Islam."

If Blair is right, which I suspect he is, then our true enemy isn't really a group of people, but a set of ideas. As Sullivan himself points out:

"These kids were programmed zealots - 'cleanskins'
who could not be traced through the criminal justice
system - and who only need the right mosque and al
Qaeda contact to become mass murderers."

These "cleanskins" grew up in the First World comfort of Europe where they enjoyed all the benefits of Western democracy and individual rights. They were not the products of Third World poverty and oppression. They chose to become fanatics because something about that ideology appealed to them. The same is true of the fanatics that killed Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands and the European jihadists who are currently flocking to Iraq.

So I ask again, what reason do we have to believe that increased democracy results in less fanaticism? It seems to me that an equally plausible argument can be made that the opposite is true. As a society becomes more democratic, it necessarily becomes more open and liberal, more tolerant and more free. But it is this very phenomenon, the liberalization of society, that fans the flames of fanaticism. The periods of history that have witnessed the most rapid liberalization and societal upheaval have also spawned the most dangerous reactionary fanaticism from those who fear that change. Think of the rise of the Ku Klux Klan following the end of slavery. Or on a much smaller scale, the reaction among the religious right to Massachusetts decision to legalize gay marriange. Societal change breeds reactionary fanaticism.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully in favor of promoting democracy whenever and wherever possible, but I fear we may be fooling ourselves if we think democratization of the Middle East will solve the problem of terrorism, or even help it. The liberalization of societal norms that accompanies democratic reform will undoubtedly threaten those who subscribe to the most fundamentalist of ideologies, and may, therefore, exacerbate the problem of Islamic fanaticism. And the freedoms of speech and association which come with democracy will facilitate the spread of all ideas, including the dangerous ones.

I think it's time we faced the possibility that the poisonous ideology that we're fighting may be just as infectious in any type of society. It may be time to go back to square one and really examine in an empirically rigorous way what factors lead to the radicalization of Muslim youth. Conservatives need to realize that we cannot defeat an ideology unless we understand it completely. Simply labeling terrorists 'evil' is not nearly enough. They are evil, but there are many varieties of evil and many ways in which one can be led down a path to evil. Until we understand exactly what causes someone born in the freedom and comfort of the West to become a suicide-bomber, what hope do we have of prevailing?