27 Feb 2007: ISS Today: The Threat of Counterterrorism Legislation

27 February 2007: The Threat of Counterterrorism Legislation

 

Recently, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has demonstrated a renewed determination to move against the Muslim Brotherhood. His decision to develop and implement counter terrorism legislation therefore raises important questions about the threat posed by such laws to political opposition in general and the actual role of counterterrorism legislation in preventing and combating terrorism.

 

Counterterrorism legislation should not simply be used against political opposition groups, for this tends to render it counterproductive. This becomes evident if we assume that the felt need to resort to acts of terrorism on a domestic level can be traced, at least in part, to the experience of political marginalisation, a crisis of political legitimacy and the use of security forces to secure the regime rather than the population at large.

 

The growing fear that in Egypt new counterterrorism legislation will be used to replace legislation sanctioning the state of emergency in place since 1981 has been fuelled by the security forces’ announcement that 40 members of the Muslim Brotherhood arrested recently will be judged by military tribunals and not by criminal courts. This came despite a renewed commitment since 2005 on the part of President Mubarak to initiate political reform. The Muslim Brotherhood renounced the use of violence in mid-1970s, but its members were still compelled to gain their 88 seats in parliament as independent candidates. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood are still regularly targeted by the security forces. In light of this, there seems every reason to fear that the counterterrorism legislation presently being drafted will simply replace the current state of emergency, thus limiting the real impact of political reform.

 

Essentially, developing and implementing counterterrorism legislation is only one step in implementing a successful counter- and anti-terrorism strategy. Likewise the development of counterterrorism legislation cannot be regarded as an effective shield against terrorism. A holistic approach is required against terrorism, including limiting the ‘need’ felt by individuals and groups to resort to terrorism as a tactic. Although international political developments, such as the continuing conflict in Palestine and Iraq, play a significant role in motivating individuals to become involved, more domestic circumstances contribute to a country’s vulnerability to terrorism. Instead of focussing exclusively on counterterrorism legislation, it is the conduct of security forces and those who use state power to stay in control under the guise of preventing and combating terrorism that demand more scrutiny. The primary aim of legislation should be to protect the citizenry, not to constitute a source of controversy or even contribute to instability. To prevent counterterrorism measures from contributing to terrorism, certain principles could be used as guidelines for an effective counterterrorism strategy:

 

• It is the responsibility of government to uphold the rule of law and the constitution, which also serve as framework for its activities, including the policy, strategy and tactics to prevent and combat terrorism.
• Government’s initiatives and instruments to prevent and combat terrorism should be accountable.
• Indiscriminate repression in an attempt to deal with terrorism might be effective on the short-term, but medium- to long-term consequences will only provide legitimacy to those the government attempts to counter. A strategy to prevent and combat terrorism can be compared to a chess game between government forces and terrorists – meaning that all actions have consequences. It is therefore essential that decision makers and those implementing this strategy should continuously ask whether its actions will benefit the cause of those it intends to combat.
• It is the responsibility of the government and its security forces to do everything in their power, but within the framework of the law, to protect its citizens (and others within its territory) against terrorism.
• As part of a holistic approach to prevent and combat terrorism, government must address the underlying causes of terrorism to dissuade individuals from resorting to terrorism and to isolate terrorists from a potential support base. This includes assessing whether local political circumstances will ultimately justify the use of violence, including acts of terrorism, as the only remaining strategy available.

 

The threat of terrorism cannot be disregarded. Likewise, the need for security cannot ignore the essential role of free and fair political participation and the need to protect other basic human rights for the sake of long term protection against terrorism. In implementing a successful anti-terrorism strategy, which includes counter-terrorism legislation, governments and its security forces should ensure that their actions will not eventually lead to a situation in which they win a short-term battle, but lose the long-term war.

 

Anneli Botha, African Security Analysis Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)