Complementing Conventional Law Enforcement: Grassroots efforts to preventing and combating Terrorism

ABDULRAHMAN M WANDATI

Complementing Conventional LawEnforcement: Grassroots efforts topreventing and combating Terrorism

A Paper presented during the Conference on “Upholding HumanRights in Counter Terrorism: The Role of Non-State Actors”

Panafric Hotel Nairobi

May 11th – 12th 2009

AbstractOur society is divided into the realm of Law enforcement and

that of Grassroots - the formal and non-formal, the mainstream

and the peripheral. In the Functionalist Society in which we

live, Structures and institutions have roles that ensure the

stability of the Society by propagating and upholding

conventions by which our lives are ordered. These are law

enforcement Agencies reviewed and supervised by the State. The

State itself is a system of society conceived for specific

purposes and ideally placed at the constant scrutiny of the

citizens and the direction of the constitution. The quest for

the power to order the mobilization and distribution of the

economic surplus within the society and the magnitude of

coercive expressions manifests itself primarily as a political

endeavor which has localized and Global dimension undermining

the locus of individual states to act appropriately. The state

citizen relationships are themselves being redefined with the

common currency to either side being Security and Respect for

Human Rights. If the Grassroots are to effectively play their

role in preventing and combating terrorism, they have to hold

the apparatus of state to account in line with the provisions

of the constitution for, Terrorism comes on the heel of abuse

of constitutional provisions for fair play and participation of

all in the political life of society

Page | 2

1. BackgroundIt seems to me that this topic will be best approached by

formulating at least three theses viz:

1. Conventional Law Enforcement Mechanisms established in our

society on the basis of custom, agreement, standard e.t.c.

and which exist as social structures and institutions that

we have put in place and by which we have sought to prevent

and combat Terrorism are inadequate for the purpose.

2. Inadequate conventional law enforcement mechanisms can and

should be complemented by Grassroots efforts.

3. Conventional law enforcement complimented by Grassroots

efforts will effectively prevent and combat Terrorism.

The first assumption is that in the very minimum our society is

divided and exists as the Realm of Law Enforcement and the Realm

of the Grassroots, whose offshoots are the mainstream and

peripheral or formal and informal. In terms of Law Enforcement

then, we must see the two Realms as Primary and Essential on one

hand and Secondary and ‘Supplementary’ on the other. In other

words, the Grassroots may only complement the Enforcement and may

not constitute the Enforcement itself.

Is it possible to conceive of a segregated society such as has

been described above and talk of ‘Convention’ in the same breath?

Are the Grassroots subjects of Conventional Law Enforcement?Page | 3

Could the inhabitants of our two realms be subject to the same

conventions at the same time? Are they equally accountable and

responsible for law enforcement? When and how do the Grassroots

stand seized of the matter of complementing Conventional law

enforcement? Indeed when and how do the Grassroots stand seized

of the matter to prevent and combat terrorism? Above all: pray

what or who are the Grassroots anyway?

2. Convention and Conventional Law EnforcementThe Collins Dictionary of Sociology1 defines a convention as 1.

‘Any existing regularized social practice or accepted rule of

usage. For the most part in sociology the term is not used in a

sense that departs greatly from every day usage. 2. In politics

specifically, an established precedent in, or expectation of,

procedures in political office, e.g. that the prime minister can

call an election. Such expectations or conventions are not

promulgated as written laws or formally stated rules, and thus,

are sometimes a matter of interpretation or dispute. 3. In the US

the political assemblies ‘convene’ to select presidential

candidates. 4. Formal agreements between nation states’.

Conventional Law Enforcement then, refers to the enforcement of

the law as regularized by social practice and accepted rule of

usage. It involves systems and agencies. Indeed the main aim of

law enforcement is to ensure that it is respected – that the dos

1 Jary D & Jary J, Collins Dictionary of Sociology Harper Collins Publishers 1991p.120

Page | 4

and don’ts of society are kept separate-that the rights of

members of the society are respected. The conventions themselves

and the methods of law enforcement must be what has been accepted

by the society as the norm. To paraphrase Aristotle, a convention

is what is held as a simple truth by all and sundry such as ‘the

law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors2’.This

should be self evident to everyone for it to be a convention.

Consequently, the manner in which law enforcement is pursued

within a society must be in conformity with the everyday meaning

and social practice of the society. The main organ with the

primary responsibility for Conventional Law Enforcement is the

state. In this respect the state acts as the median of society –

moderating between avarice and want, between right and wrong and

the haughty and the meek – between God and Caesar.

As a system, the state is 1. ‘The apparatus of rule or government within a

particular territory. 2. The overall territory and social system which is subject to a

particular rule or domination. In this second sense the term ‘state’ and ‘SOCIETY’ may be

used interchangeably 3’.According to Max WEBER, the capacity to

successfully uphold a claim to the monopoly of the use of

violence within its territory is a definitive feature of a state

although this need not be the only feature by which a state

defines itself. The rulers must strive to attain political2 Aristotle, Politics, Book 1: http//www.constitution.org/ari/politics-07

3 Jary D & Jary J, Collins Dictionary of Sociology Harper Collins Publishers 1991pp 623-624

Page | 5

legitimacy and keep the threat of force only in the background.

There is an agreement among scholars that ‘the central

appropriation of an economic surplus and social stratification

are both essential requirements and a consequence of the

subsequent development of states’.

A further feature of modern states is that, whereas most forms of

premodern states had only subjects, modern states have CITIZENS

(i.e. full members of political community enjoying the right to

vote, and the right to stand for office. A related distinction is

that between state and civil society. This is an important

distinction, especially in Marxism, where it provides a

vocabulary to distinguish between state and society, or state and

individual citizens or groups of citizens4.

In his politics Aristotle characterized the state as a partnership

between the citizen and the Constitution5 He must have based his

characterization on his acknowledgement that personalities and

forms of government may change while the Citizen’s loyalty to the

constitution remains the only reliable mechanism towards which a

virtuous state can be attained or where it already exists,

maintained. A loyal citizen fulfils his duty of complementing

conventional law Enforcement by himself obeying the law and

defending the constitution. The defense of the constitution

includes participation in matters of government and holding the

4 Ibid

5 Aristotle, Politic Book IPage | 6

power holders to accountability. Put another way, Law enforcement

whether conventional or complementary must ultimately resonate

with the Constitution and the imperative to obtain good that

according to Aristotle, informs all actions of mankind. Whether

Aristotle would consider a member of the Grassroots a citizen is

not the subject of today’s discussion.

3. The rules of Social livingReligion, Economics and Politics are without doubt the most

important of all the means of interaction that human beings have,

as they contribute to their progress and development. As Drivers

of our expressions however, politics occupies the highest

position– especially in matters to do with power and its

dispersal amongst the many centres of human interaction – if not

society. While the transcendental nature of Religion cannot be

denied or downplayed6 and the role of Economics7 in Society

demeaned, it is Politics that is the only appropriate mechanism

through which groups make decisions. It is the dominant feature

in all human group interactions. It straddles all social

relationships in which authority and power are involved. In other

words, politics consists of activities concerned with governing a country or

6 Religion is defined as ‘belief in supernatural beings and institutions andpractices associated with these beliefs’ or ‘a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things set apart and held in awe, which unites the believers into a moral community or church’

7 Economics concerns itself with the Production, Distribution and Consumption of Goods and Services

Page | 7

area. Politics also means a set of political beliefs8 . Politics also refers

to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy. In

this respect, Enforcing Conventional Law, Complementing it with

Grassroots Efforts or even preventing and combating Terrorism are

aspirations deeply embedded in political discourse. The necessity

of political discourse – indeed its primacy above religion and

economics is well demonstrated by Daniel Defoe in his fictional

Characters Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday.

4. Approaches to Understanding Society

Aristotle designated man, by nature a political animal who when

perfected is the best of animals.

“…….but, when separated from law and justice, he is the

worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous,

and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by

intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst

ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most

unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of

lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states,

for the administration of justice, which is the

determination of what is just, is the principle of order in

political society9.

8 Oxford English Dictionary sixth Edition, Oxford University, 2004,p 426

9 Aristotle, Politics, Book 1: http//www.constitution.org/ari/politics-07p.3Page | 8

For Aristotle, the state is a key component of society as a

mechanism for the dispensation of law and justice. Indeed the

administration of justice is the principle of order in political

society. Mankind, according to Aristotle, always acts in order to

obtain some good and every community is established therefore for

the same purpose and the state being a community and the highest

in that respect must aim for the highest good. One cannot help

but see Aristotle’s influence in the Structural -Functionalist

approach to society which views Society in the same manner as a

biological Organism. In this respect, Functionalist theoreticians

emphasize the inter-relationship of parts to wholes in human society and

relationship between social structures and human agency10.

The functionalist perspective is underpinned by the organized

pattern of behavior relating to major parts of life. This

organized behavior is considered to be the achievement of

institutions each of which performs a function that contributes

to keeping the society alive and healthy. Functionalists assume

for example that:

Societies are structured with members relating to each other

in an orderly manner and acting according to norms or

expected patterns of behavior

10 Jary D & Jary J, Collins Dictionary of Sociology Harper Collins Publishers 1991 p244

Page | 9

Societies tend to be stable and orderly because there are

parts of society (such as the police) that perform functions

which help to maintain it11.

Communities in their uniqueness constitute some of the

institutions upon whose ‘shoulders’ the functionalists place the

responsibility to stabilize society and ensure law and order. In

this respect, Rothman (1995)12 for example likens the functions

of a community to that of a family. These functions include

economic, socialization, political, participation and mutual

support. In this thinking, a family is a site for the production,

distribution and consumption of goods and services while at the

same time ensuring the education of its members. It is also at

the family level that we first come to terms with social control

and voluntary association. Finally, Rothman points out that it is

to the family that we also first look for health and welfare.

Rothman asserts that a community is an important subsystem of

society as it emphasizes ‘the territorial organization of people, goods,

services, and commitments13’Looked at from a broader perspective, our

11 Young people and Society, CYP Module 2 Commonwealth Secretariat, London United Kingdom,p 8

12 Rothman J, Erlich Jl, and Tropman J.E (Eds) Strategies of Community intervention – Macro practice, Fifth Edition, Peacock Publishers Inc, 1995 cited in Working with People in their Community, CYP Module 4, Commonwealth Secretariat, London United Kingdom, 2001

13 Working with People in their Community, CYP Module 4, Commonwealth Secretariat, London United Kingdom, 2001 p. 5

Page | 10

ability to define who we are and where our loyalties lie, is also

a function of the community. A community may then be summarized

as the place where we earn our living, obtain the goods and

services we need for sustenance and recreation, learn which

values and behavior are appropriate and where we have a voice in

governance.

In relation to our discussion then, the two Realms I alluded to

in the contextualization of the topic are parts of the same

Organism or communities each completely defined for its specific

purposes but serving the aims of one whole. They may not always

act in unanimity or even in complimentary ways. Indeed they may

even act in conflicting ways. This apparent disharmony may be

understood if we take on board the views of social interaction

propagated by the Interactionists who maintain that individuals

attach social meaning and significance to their action and that

meaning depends on the context of the interaction. With respect

to our topic then, if both the Conventional law Enforcement

Agencies and the Grassroots assign the same meaning to the

phenomenon of Terrorism, then complementation of efforts to

prevent and combat it appears not just necessary but a definite

consequence. Theories in the study of World politics and

International Relations have attempted to provide bases for such

common understanding.

Page | 11

Although the events of 9/11 have significantly littered the

political landscape with terminology regarding social tensions

some of which have been manifested violently, no other theory has

informed political action more than the four rendered in the

strictest brevity below:

1. Realism – in which the state is the ultimate sovereign with noother actor above the state that can compel it to act in aparticular way, Realism sees human nature as fixed and cruciallyselfish.

2. Liberalism – based on the notion that human nature isperfectible, democracy is necessary for that perfectibility andthat ideas matter.

3. Marxism – the assumption that world politics takes placewithin a world capitalist economy in which the most importantactors are not the states but classes

4. Constructivism – The notion that not only are the structuresof world politics amenable to change but so also are theidentities and interests that the other theories take forgranted.

While each of these theories requires a deeper analysis on theirown, for the purpose of this discussion, one cannot help butdiscern the inherent dynamism of the ultimate sovereignty of thestate propagated by the realists if read with the central themeof the constructivists which is that the identities and interestsof structures and actors in world politics are amenable tochange. The Maoists are now in power in Nepal as is the RPF inRwanda and the NRM in Uganda. This realization must of necessitytake us back to the Aristotelian characterization of state aspartnership between citizen and constitution.

Page | 12

5. The social roots and political identity of TerrorismThe functionalist perspective is a consensus view of society and

would no doubt view terrorism as dysfunctional and a threat to

the stability of society. The Interactionists would on the other

hand demand that we pay attention to the social meaning of the

action we have described as terrorist. Either way an act of

terrorism is an indication of a conflict that has significantly

escalated or a catalyst to the escalation of conflict. Terrorism

is the threat of or the actual use of violence for the

advancement of political aims. The old adage, one man’s terrorist

is another man’s Liberation fighter underscores the political

origins if not legitimacy of terrorism. The Functionalist logic

of terrorism as a manifestation of a dysfunctional society is

deeper than can be assumed. It calls for a re-examination of

society and its institutions. All acts of terrorism define the

level of confrontation between some group (or Community) with the

state. In Aristotelian wisdom, every community is established

with the view to some good and the state aims at good in a

greater degree. Clearly there is a conjunction of interest

between the state and any such community that consists part of

it. This, again according to Aristotle is to establish and

administer law and justice.

What then could lead man in his associational form (which we call

community) and the inherent propensity for good to clash with the

state which by its very nature and definition must be the epitome

Page | 13

of good? The answer lies in the interpretation of the symbols

held dear by each if not both sides. The dispute, I can imagine

is, in what constitutes ‘good’ itself and what constitutes Law

and Justice.

As Jary & Jary (1991: 656)14 define terrorism as a form of politically

motivated action combining psychological (fear inducing) and physical (violent action)

components carried out by individuals or small groups with the aim of inducing

communities or states to meet the terrorists demands. They then hasten to add

that: “the concept (of terrorism) remains notoriously difficult

to define with any precision. The major problem is summarized in

the adage that ‘one person’s terrorist is another person’s

freedom fighter’. The issue is complicated further because some

would argue that acts of terrorism do not belong exclusively to

the politically motivated but may also be employed by criminals

and psychopaths. However, political terrorism can be thought of as the

use of violence by a group either acting on behalf of, or in

opposition to, an established political authority.

Rubenstein (1987) suggests that terrorism usually springs from

the political alienation of the INTELLIGENTSIA from both the

ruling class and the masses. The former engages in repression and

the latter is indifferent. This combination is particularly

likely to appear in colonial situations although it may occur in

any country where a social crisis generated by a rapid and uneven

14 Jary D & Jary J, Collins Dictionary of Sociology Harper Collins Publishers 1991p 656

Page | 14

economic development isolates intellectuals from the masses for

whom they wish to act as political spokesmen. The other

precondition for terrorism occurs when a reform movement

collapses or when it appears that such a movement will not

succeed in restructuring society. For advocates of terrorism,

individual or small-group violence becomes the only means that

can expose the fragility of the ruling class, raise the

consciousness of the masses, and attract new members and

supporters to the movement.

Terrorism acts are predicated on the aim of furthering a view of

society that is not totally shared and which may not be advanced

by the mere force of argument. This aim is not what informs the

violent behavior that may be adopted by the State or its

challengers. It is clear then that terrorism is the dramatization

of the conflicts that exist in society especially when the

channels of expression otherwise known simply as ‘VOICE’ have

been monopolized by one side to the conflict – especially the one

possessing ‘disproportionate power. It is clear also that in

civilized society mechanisms arise by which the good and useful

is promoted while the evil and destructive is suppressed and

eliminated. The reason left for conflicts of terrorist

proportions then can only be the absence of a shared meaning of

what is good and useful and what is evil and destructive or who

both concepts relate to and what one’s responsibility is in

either of the two circumstances. The topic selected for this

Page | 15

presentation speaks of Law Enforcement presupposing unanimity on

a law to be enforced and an Agency to enforce such a law. In this

respect it is critical that we turn our attention on Conventional

Law enforcement as a sine qua non of civilized human society.

6. Conventional law Enforcement and the Global War on TerrorThe modern sate is a factor of European political evolution from

Monarchical and feudal orders. This institutional development

that started gradually in the 15th Century was predicated on

circulation of macroeconomics and consumption. The government

stood between the labor market and the financial market on two

ends and household and corporations on the other. A commodities

market intervened between the households and the corporations

with the state facilitating these interactions paving the way for

absolutism and capitalism.

There are today 200 political entities that more or less fit the

definition of state promoted by Weber. The majority of these

states are members of the United Nations Organization (UN). They

conduct business among them and relate with one another within a

framework which International relations theorists call a system,

where

each state takes into account the behavior of other states

when making their own calculations. From this point of view,

states embedded in an international system face internal and

external security and legitimation dilemmas. Recently thePage | 16

notion of an "international community" has been developed to

refer to a group of states who have established rules,

procedures, and institutions for the conduct of their

relations. In this way the foundation has been laid for

international law, diplomacy, formal regimes, and

organizations15.

Yet Terrorism as a phenomenon of political expression by violent

action with its international character and long history only

acquired an ominous image demanding a Global and in many cases

brutal response in the beginning of this millennium. This demand

not withstanding, no consensus on the definition of and

legitimate and appropriate response to terrorism has been reached

at the international level. Many innocent people continue to lose

their lives and property destroyed in this phenomenon that has

become the scourge of this Millennium. There have been

interventions by some states but these have been at very great

costs to territorial integrity of other states and the human

rights of citizens not to mention their lives. The legitimacy of

any state lies in the extent to which it facilitates the

enjoyment by its citizens of their human rights to the full. In

the context of terrorist activities and any back lash subsequent

to such activities, it is the responsibility of the state to

15 "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state"

Page | 17

ensure that the citizens’ person, property and dignity remain

inviolable.

It cannot be denied that the international character of terrorism

calls for international and even supra-national response. What

should also not be denied in the same breath is that since the

promulgation on December 10th 1948 of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, states and individual alike must adhere to a

minimum code of behavior that qualifies them to the fraternity of

civilized peoples. The Global War on Terror opened the doors for

the negation of all the conventions that underscored civilized

behavior between nations and between states and its citizens. The

nightmare that ensued from this misguided zealotry is best

dramatized by Arundhati Roy:

If you think about it, the logic that underlies the war on terrorism and

the logic that underlies terrorism are exactly the same. Both make

ordinary citizens pay for the actions of their government. Al Qaeda made

the people of the United States pay with their lives for the actions of

their government in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The

U.S. government has made the people of Afghanistan pay in the thousands

for the actions of the Taliban and the people of Iraq pay in the

hundreds of thousands for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

The crucial difference is that nobody really elected Al Qaeda, the

Taliban, or Saddam Hussein. But the President of the United States was

elected (well... in a manner of speaking). The Prime Ministers of Italy,

Spain, and the United Kingdom were elected. Could it then be argued that

citizens of these countries are more responsible for the actions of

Page | 18

their government than Iraqis were for the actions of Saddam Hussein or

Afghans for the Taliban?16

In Roy’s words above a stage is set for loyal citizens to start

wondering whether the terrorists and those charged with the

affairs of state are not in league to permanently deny them of

their right to peaceful and gainful living. Naomi Klein in her

Shock Doctrine proposes an economic imperative pursued by governments

in the so-called war on terror.

”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………..With everyone preoccupied with the deadly

new culture wars, the Bush administration was able to pull off what it could only have

dreamed of doing before 9/11: wage privatized wars abroad and build a corporate

security complex at home17

7. Connecting the Dots: the role of Grassroots in Enforcing theLaw

The computer Thesaurus lists the other words for Grassroots as

waged people, proletariat, working class, workers, masses, the

herd and plebs with its antonym given as aristocracy. The Oxford

English Dictionary on the other hand, defines grassroots as the

ordinary people in an organization or society, rather than the leaders. It is a

concept associated with civil Society. The Grassroots signifies16 Roy . A, Public Power in the age of the Empire, Public Lecture, American Sociological Association's 99th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, August 16, 2004.

17 Klein. N, The Shock Doctrine, Penguin Books, USA 2007

Page | 19

the masses in the discussion by WEBER of the state. At the level

of grassroots however, they assume associational form with the

desire if not capacity to do things for themselves. They are

driven by a self-help ideology at its most basic level.

Grassroots are communities in their own right and exhibit all the

characteristics of a community.

As close to the grass in their specific states as the Grassroots

may be, their associational formation is a reaction or form of

international reality. The social structures at the Global level

find real-life expression in communities in the most basic of

circumstances. Most grassroots Communities are defined by poverty

and deprivation. It is almost the unstated law that states will

always view the deprived and the poor with suspicion. Law

enforcement agencies also happen to excel as profilers of social

categories and individuals they have to deal with. They create a

perception and deal with otherwise innocent citizens on the basis

of such profiles and stereo-type. Woe to you if your profile fits

their idea of a terrorist! They will haul you out in the most

undignified manner totally oblivious to the Constitutional, legal

and even cultural safeguards that you may have all along taken

for granted as inherent in the notion of a citizen.

In this regard, the Grassroots have been complementing most of

the amenities that looked slightly less removed from the

immediate concern of the state. These have included education,Page | 20

health care, housing, food, safety – indeed their very lives! As

this state of affairs has progressed with the state receding in

its provision function, its pretext for existence has been the

protection of the citizens against outside aggression – what with

citizens providing their own security in many forms including

private guards, barricades and sungusungus! All formal state

driven proposals to combat and prevent terrorism, the threat has

been projected as having external origin of prompting – an

external aggression squarely on the lap of the state. To expect

the Grassroots to rise to this occasion as well, is to confirm

and adopt albeit sadly the Swahili saying: Kilichawachwa no mwizi

huliwa na Mganga and to negate the other that says Zimwi likujuwalo

halikuli likakumaliza. The state seeks to sit pretty and lord it over

the citizens that continue to bankroll it while it exerts every

pound of flesh from them! Well, the state ought to allow the

Grassroots to formulate the policies and approaches to the

prevention and combating of terrorism which must remain faithful

to the letter and spirit of our Constitution.

Page | 21