Towards the tolerance civilisations

Citation

Blackman, C. (2006), "Towards the tolerance civilisations", Foresight, Vol. 8 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs.2006.27308aaa.001

Towards the tolerance civilisations

The trouble with foresight, to paraphrase Michel Godet, is that when things are going well decision makers think that they can manage without it, and when things are going badly it is too late for them to see beyond the end of their noses. Thus it seems surprising that, just when France seems to be in turmoil and in need of greater vision, it is effectively scrapping its state foresight mechanism, le Commissariat Général du Plan. In this issue, Jacques Richardson briefly explores whether the decision should be seen as a rejection of centralised state planning, or rather whether the French government has tired of le Plan’s pessimistic outlook.

Nothing illustrates the tendency for head burying and short-sightedness more clearly than the planetary clash of civilisations in which we are now locked. Of course over the past 14 centuries it is not easy to point to times when things could have been said to have “been going well”, but it is essential that we now try to look beyond the end of our noses.

Thus helping us in that direction are Pech and Slade, who continue their exploration of the religious motivation for terrorism. This builds on their earlier article in foresight last year on the catalysts for terrorist acts. Analyses of terrorism are commonplace but what distinguishes their work is the creation of a diagnostic framework to enable better understanding of terrorism and its appeal to those being recruited to its cause. As Pech and Slade write:

This diagnostic framework assesses the influence and power of selective religious teachings when combined with a culture and history of violence, and their impact upon susceptible minds in a fractured society.

But there is no liberal, woolly or moral equivocation here:

The brutal overthrow of freedom and democracy appears to be the driving goal of religiously inspired terrorists. They seek total domination, removal of democratically elected governments, and the installation of unpalatable and religiously motivated regimes.

All of this prompted me recently to revisit Samuel Huntington’s (1993) seminal paper in which he forecast the clash of civilisations to come. Much criticised at the time for seemingly legitimating American aggression, his reading seems to have been vindicated by 9/11, subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and terrorist attacks in Bali, Madrid, London and elsewhere. The fact that Theo van Gogh’s murderer was Dutch, and the fact that the London bombers were born and brought up in the UK are shocking discoveries but they become less so on re-reading Huntington.

Perhaps more prescient was Bernard Lewis, who Huntington acknowledged, when writing about the underlying reasons for Muslim anger (Lewis, 1990). Importantly Lewis pointed out that fundamentalism is not the only Islamic tradition and that not all Western ideas have been rejected by the Muslim world, crucially politically freedom. It may be fragile and it may have opponents and it may not conform exactly to Western interpretations but it is incorrect to think that Muslims reject democracy. As Norris and Inglehart (2003) show, support for democratic institutions is just as strong among those living in Muslim societies as in Western societies. It is true that Muslim societies show greater support for religious authorities playing an active societal role than do Western societies, but the cultural gap between Islam and the West widens into a chasm when it comes to attitudes toward gender equality and sexual liberalisation. Equal rights and opportunities for women, homosexuality, abortion, and divorce are accepted much more in democratic societies and are part of a broader syndrome of tolerance, trust, political activism, and emphasis on individual autonomy and self-expression. Norris and Inglehart also found that support for gender equality and the degree of democracy were closely linked.

So, what conclusions can we draw from all this? Well, if there are any they are complex and the solutions are going to be long term. Clearly tolerance comes with democracy, and democracy comes through modernisation rather than through the barrel of a gun. Also the front line is not just in Fallujah or Bali but in Clichy-sous-Bois and Leeds. This is why the accession of Turkey into the European Union is of such critical importance. Today, there are many reasons to reject its membership (see for instance the book review in this issue), but if we can look beyond the end of our collective nose, it seems clear that Europe’s engagement with Turkey is a critical step on the path towards the tolerance of civilisations.

Colin Blackman