The spectre of terrorism

Democracy allows the community to choose its leaders and entrusts them with a sacred responsibility to protect our fundamental human values. Irrespective of their political orientation the community hopes and expects that its leaders will possess and demonstrate wisdom and will have a sense of perspective on the lessons of history. The community expects that in the face of sometimes great pressures leaders will maintain a sense of proportion and responsibility and demonstrate prudence and consistency in their decisions on important national issues. This has been the national leadership paradigm that has prevailed since the end of the Second World War, despite various periods of great global insecurity. This paradigm has been shattered in the 21st century with the global ascendance of technology-enabled psychological warfare, with the spectre of terrorism emerging as a universal trigger for a hysterical emotional response

Reality without virtue

The polarisation of positivist-constructivist ontologies on the nature of physical reality is matched by similarly divergent views on human nature. Some people react instinctively to others from an adversarial, sceptical, judgemental and expedient perspective (and are happy to be called realists). Others respond in good faith in empathic, sincere, inquiring and principled ways (and are happy to be called idealists). These perspectives are largely irreconcilable, with realists viewing idealists as naïve and weak and idealists viewing realists as cynical and tough. It is a great irony in the 21st century that ubiquitous technologies that universally empower people by facilitating access to virtually limitless information are also transforming individual perceptions of reality and challenging long-standing moral precepts on the attributes of a "good" society. The globalisation of free-market economic ideology (with the liberation of individual "animal spirits") has accelerated the displacement of (idealist) intrinsic value with (realist) monetary value, inevitably eroding long-standing social and cultural norms. The information revolution has arguably had its most profound impact at the personal level. A growing crescendo of information "noise" challenges the individual\u27s capacity to interpret and make sense of reality, disrupting existing processes for creating and sharing knowledge. A natural human response to the immediacy, intensity, complexity and quantity of largely undifferentiated information is the creation of filters that prioritize those issues that are of direct and immediate personal relevance while excluding more complex, detached and abstract ideas In Australia the dominant media constantly derides as unrealistic and anachronistic the expression of intrinsic virtues and higher national aspirations, and the loss of the rare public champions for moral reasoning (such as the late former PM Malcolm Fraser) is highly regrettable. Whether it is public discourse on asylum seekers, gender equity, indigenous recognition or racism, the prevailing perspective is a pessimistic and utilitarian realism

Acquiescing to terrorism

Terrorism is essentially a political and psychological strategy that relies for its enduring impact on catalysing a militaristic and utilitarian counter-terrorism response to misperceptions of a grave and imminent threat. Decisive and expedient counter-terrorism strategies post 9/11 have required significant compromises to a range of long-established democratic principles and institutions, including altering the delicate balance between civil liberties and national security in favour of strengthening and extending the state\u27s security and intelligence capabilities. While the expansion of the state\u27s surveillance powers and capabilities has obvious implications for individual privacy and civil liberties, burgeoning securitization and the expansion of the secret state has significant potential to permanently undermine essential democratic accountability. Democratic legitimacy is predicated on the capacity of citizens to periodically hold elected representatives to account for the public actions and performance of government. The capacity for democratic accountability is seriously impeded when a growing number of the government\u27s key functions are undertaken in secret. The powerful emotional and fearful dimensions of the spectre of terrorism poses diabolical dilemmas for Australia\u27s elected political representatives. In the face of perceptions of a grave and imminent threat to national security there is great electoral advantage in appearing strong and decisive, particularly when the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. Any suggestion of scepticism, caution or nuance on national security by elected representatives is immediately interpreted as weakness by sections of the media and poses enormous political risks. This treacherous political environment demands unquestioning bipartisan support for Team Australia\u27s utilitarian approach towards counter-terrorism and acceptance of a simplistic us/them conflict paradigm. In such an environment there are few opportunities for informed and objective public debate on complex or sensitive issues or matters of principle, let alone critical consideration of the justification, cost, effectiveness and implications of existing counter-terrorism measures

Terrorism and the power of fear

Fear is a visceral human emotion with the power to overwhelm and subsume all other feelings and rational thoughts. Terrorism seeks to coerce political and social change by threatening extreme and indiscriminate violence against the community. But the real power of terrorism is not the capacity of zealots to threaten or undertake violence but its ability to catalyse an extreme and disproportionate reaction from the state, effectively perpetuating and magnifying the community\u27s fear and changing the nature of society. Terrorism relies for its enduring impact on the state (over)reacting in ways that permanently transform perceptions of national security. By responding to terrorism in expedient, oppressive and inhumane ways the state can erode its own democratic principles and moral authority, ultimately weakening social cohesion. Terrorism has a unique capacity to undermine democracy by eliciting a militaristic response that suspends or compromises a number of the important conventions and principles of civil society, including democratic accountability. This is because the secrecy that invariably surrounds national security makes it virtually impossible for the community to determine whether counter-terrorism actions are justified and proportionate to a real (rather than exaggerated) threat, and to hold elected representatives to account. Read more via link

Consumers' cooperation in America.

Thesis (M.A.)--Boston Universit

The dark face of absolute liberty

A central tenet of the social contract is the individual\u27s obligation to eschew force (with the exception of an inalienable right to self-defence) in return for collective security, with the state holding a monopoly on the use of force. After centuries of repression and violent conflict 18th century Enlightenment values sought to fundamentally recast the social contract and redress the power imbalance between the individual and the state. Given the preceding history the state was largely perceived as a malevolent force that acted for narrow interests against the common good. Enlightenment values asserted the pre-eminence of the free, autonomous and self-reliant individual, with the secular state deriving its power/authority/legitimacy through the willing consent of those governed. The question of an appropriate balance between individual rights and social obligations remains a universal quandary. Does a culture that emphasises individual autonomy and self-reliance impact on the broader commitment to a peaceful and harmonious society? Does a libertarian culture inevitably engender some level of mistrust in the state and an associated lack of confidence in collective security? Where self-reliance extends to individual responsibility for personal safety (by providing the individual with the means and authority to resort to force), what are the implications for the nature and extent of interpersonal violence? For many years the United States has defined itself as an exceptional culturally advanced society that stands as a bastion for liberty against repressive foreign forces. Upholding the citizen\u27s "natural" right to self-defence by enshrining a right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an integral part of this culture. For the same reasons the United States asserts an absolute right to take pre-emptive military action internationally against foreign adversaries in pursuit of its own self-defence. Domestically there is obvious dissonance between this self-image and the reality of extraordinary levels of interpersonal violence, political polarisation, social alienation and economic inequity. These complex issues are bought into sharp contrast when we try to comprehend why American citizens regularly resort to indiscriminate large-scale violence against innocent civilians (such as mass shootings and occasional bombings). Is it simply because citizens have relatively unrestricted access to the means to effectively undertake such violence, or are there deeper issues about the real level of community commitment to a civilised society

The risks of terror

Like all phobias, terrorism relies for its enduring effect on sustaining and reinforcing irrational fear. Remarkably, terrorism co-opts credulous authorities who need to constantly dramatize the magnitude and imminence of the threat in order to justify exceptional government actions to protect the community. The reach and impact of the distorted "death cult" propaganda is reflected in the (absurd) characterisation of terrorism as an existential threat to civilised society. One of the significant risks of terrorism is therefore its capacity to elicit an authoritarian response by zealous governments under the auspices of a new and more powerful (utilitarian) national security paradigm. By reacting in militaristic ways to misperceptions of the terrorism threat governments can damage the fundamental institutions and principles that are the foundations for a contemporary and cohesive liberal democracy, at the same time compromising the moral authority and legitimacy of the state and exacerbating the social marginalisation and radicalisation that governments are seeking to prevent. Ironically, Australian Governments have previously recognised the potential for alarmist, populist or reactionary perspectives to distort national priorities, and for a number of years authorities have applied an objective risk management approach to identifying and evaluating the relative risks to the nation\u27s interest from a broad range of hazards. An all-hazards risk management approach examines and compares the likelihood and consequences of a diverse range of actual and potential threats (from natural disasters to pandemics to terrorism), with mortality (deaths) being an important benchmark of severe harmful consequences

Civil liberties in a grave new world

Since the Second World War Western democracies have championed human rights, decrying the abuse of civil liberties in undemocratic states. A defining feature of the Cold War was trenchant Western criticism of the pervasive surveillance of citizens in authoritarian Eastern Bloc states. In stark contrast Western democracies took great care in seeking to balance national security and civil liberties, often reflected in detailed legislation circumscribing the powers of intelligence agencies and upholding the rights of individuals. Australia operates under a Westminster system of democratic governance that is intended to provide checks and balances against the concentration and abuse of power. Justice Robert Marsden Hope showed great foresight in crafting Australia\u27s unique intelligence architecture, institutionalising the separation of information collection and analysis, national and foreign intelligence, and advisory and decision-making functions. While Hope recognised that national security agencies need to operate under the cloak of secrecy to be effective, he established mechanisms to ensure proper oversight and accountability. He emphasised the intrinsic fallibility of intelligence advice (intelligence always involves an element of interpretation and subjectivity) and its limited utility as evidence in legal proceedings or as the sole basis for executive action. It seems likely that a number of the careful security/liberties balances institutionalised by Hope have been compromised in a utilitarian response to the threat of terrorism. Pressures for the integration of military, police and intelligence functions and for the inclusion of secret intelligence as evidence in public legal proceedings directly challenge the essential checks and balances that are an integral part of Hope\u27s intelligence model. See link for full article

Magazine Pioneers: form and content in 1960s and 1970s radicalism

This chapter offers a brief overview of the historical context in which the debate over media effects might be considered. It sketches the relationship between research in this field and regulation in the UK, and considers the contribution made by a series of high-profile media stories that have naturalized the relationship between violent media and violent crime. The chapter nevertheless argues that such common-sense links may well be unfounded, and though some effects researchers (eg Anderson 2004; 2010) may claim strong evidence for direct, causal effects, others are more circumspect in their assessment of the evidence. Ultimately the author suggests that media effects may be asking the wrong questions, and that a more ethnographic approach to the relations between people and media may be more fruitful