The Politics of Islamophobia
By Ian Buruma
December 08, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" -
There are many roads to political disaster: greed,
hubris, the charisma of the demagogue, and, perhaps most dangerous
of all, fear. When people panic, they can become hysterical, and
hysteria often leads to mass violence. When politicians convince
people that they are in a life-or-death battle – that survival is a
matter of “us or them” – anything becomes possible.
Adolf Hitler combined all the elements of political
catastrophe: hubris, charisma, greed, and the idea that “Aryans” and
Jews were locked in a struggle for survival. Of course, none of the
demagogues in the West today – from Donald Trump in the United
States to Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders in Europe – are comparable
to Hitler. None has promoted dictatorship, let alone mass murder.
But they are definitely stirring up the politics of fear.
Trump, for one, also promotes greed, openly boasting
of his wealth, and has somehow refined outlandish hubris and
contradictory posturing into a bizarre form of charisma. On the one
hand, he promises to fix all the world’s problems, and to show
China, Russia, the Islamic State, or anyone else who is boss. On the
other hand, he claims that his vast and powerful country cannot take
in desperate refugees from Syria, because, he warns, Muslim
asylum-seekers might stage “one of the great military coups of all
time.”Trump’s Republican colleagues in the
race for the US presidency, such as Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Marco
Rubio, stoke similar fears about refugees. Cruz, as well as the
supposedly more moderate Jeb Bush, even suggested that only
Christians should be allowed into the US.
More than 10,000 people are killed every year by gun
violence in the US – all but a handful for reasons having nothing to
do with Islam. And yet all of the Republican candidates are proud of
opposing gun-control measures; indeed, they have no problem allowing
people to enter a school or a bar bearing concealed weapons. But
even a relative handful of Muslim refugees is too dangerous to
contemplate.This is not to say that
terrible acts of Islamist terror could not happen in the US, or
elsewhere. They have, and there probably will be more of them, so
long as the Middle East remains in turmoil and revolutionary Islam
appeals to disaffected Western youth. But it is hardly an
existential threat.
An American friend of mine speculated that, “we might
be one terrorist act away from a Trump presidency.” A spectacular
murder spree by Islamists could spook Americans enough to vote for
the greatest fear-monger. Anything is possible, but I don’t believe
American voters would be that stupid.The
greater danger is, however, that the demagogues will drive even
mainstream politicians into their camp. Since the Nov. 13 terror
attacks in Paris, Francois Hollande, the unpopular but altogether
sensible French president, has been so afraid of being labelled a
weakling by politicians of the right and far right that he has
declared a national state of emergency – and war on the Islamic
State (ISIS).
As long as France’s state of emergency lasts, police
may arrest people without warrants, break down the doors of private
residences in the middle of the night, take over restaurants and
other public places with armed force, and generally behave like
agents in a police state. Most French citizens are now so frightened
of Islamist attacks that such measures are widely supported. But
they are almost certainly counter-productive.
A national leader can declare war on a state, not on
a network of revolutionaries. ISIS, despite its claims, is not a
state, and Hollande should not treat it as one. Besides, even if
bombing ISIS strongholds in Iraq or Syria makes military sense, it
won’t break the spell of Islamist revolution for frustrated, bored,
and marginalized young people in French slums.
On the contrary: The canny leaders of ISIS also rely
on an apocalyptic “us or them” view of the world. Most Muslims are
not violent revolutionaries who condone, let alone admire, mass
violence. ISIS seeks to broaden its support, especially among young
Muslims, by convincing them that true Muslims are in an existential
war with the West – that the infidels are their mortal enemies. For
them no less than for Trump, fear is the most powerful weapon.
So the more a Western government allows its policemen
to humiliate and bully Muslims in the name of security, the more
ISIS is likely to win European recruits. The only way to combat
revolutionary Islamist violence is to gain the trust of law-abiding
Muslims in the West. This will not be easy, but arbitrary arrests
are surely the wrong way to go about it.
Likewise, when it comes to civil wars in the Middle
East, Western restraint is usually a better strategy than hasty
military intervention driven by domestic fear. Republican candidates
in the US are already using the recent murder spree in Paris to
blame President Barack Obama, and by extension any future Democratic
candidate, for being weak. Trump has promised to “bomb the shit out
of ISIS.”This bellicosity has had the
effect of pushing Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the
Democratic presidential nomination, into distancing herself from
Obama. Like Hollande, she has to assuage public fear by talking
tough and promising more military action.
Obama has consistently resisted the temptation to
unleash more wars. His policies have sometimes been inconsistent and
irresolute. But in his refusal to give in to panic and act rashly,
he has been far braver than all the big talkers who accuse him of
being a wimp.
Ian Buruma is Professor of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Journalism at Bard College, and the author of
Year Zero: A History of 1945.
Copyright
Project Syndicate 2015.
