Democracy and Terror

The most troubling thing I find about counter-terror measures is their undemocratic administration. Rules devised in the middle of the night by a group of very limited diversity immediately become dogma for a vast number of people – travelers (moving under threat of police action/response if they refuse to follow), police, airlines, etc.

I think that making democratic accountability the primary concern in responding to terrorism has several important impacts-

First, it creates an accountable process that ensures that the “Homeland Security” process doesn’t become a (bigger) propoganda machine. If forced to fully disclose for the sake of a vote the evidence involved in administering law enforcement guidelines, information must be pretty good, to avoid embarrassment and to justify to a less partisan group the need for action.

Second, it re-orients to type of response the government must take to deal with terrorist threats. The need for a democratic process removes the option of quick fix/immediate action law enforcement solutions to accommodate deliberation. By excluding this option, efforts would instead be taken to adjust foreign policy decisions preemptively to deter terrorism by removing incentives to attack in the first place. The convenience of the option to administer undemocratic but quick solutions creates a culture that don’t account for the root causes, as slow moving cultural shifts cannot keep pace with immediate threats.

Duncan