There are two main problems with this report and, unfortunately for ippr, they are the two main assumptions underpinning it. Firstly, that engagement is always good and must occur with Islamists rather than anybody else (p16 and pp41-42). Secondly, that those poor little political Islamists are simply “misunderstood” and if only we understood them better (like wot ippr do) then everything would be AOK (p41 and p45).

Sorry, but engagement for the sake of engagement is not an argument. The onus is on ippr to argue why political Islamists should be engaged and particularly why they should be engaged ahead of anybody else. Secondly, it is not other people “misunderstanding” Islamism that makes them wary of engagement with Islamists – quite the opposite. A mere faint familiarity with the principal Islamist ideologues is enough to make you very wary of engaging them and their followers.

ippr admit, in passing, that many Islamists are not very pleasant, that the Muslim Brotherhood have been involved in assassinations, bombings and the like (p13) and retain unpleasant ideas about the role of women and religious minorities in society (p15). All of which might make you think that the Muslim Brotherhood are not particularly plausible partners for encouraging positive developments on human rights and democratisation in the MENA area. Not so for ippr, however.

They remind us that the political Islamists are “[o]ccupying a middle ground between authoritarian regimes and violent jihadists” (p40) and that they will have a greater influence on the future political evolution of the Middle East than the jihadists (p8). Well that’s very nice, just not a logical argument. There are more groups out there than “authoritarian regimes”, “violent jihadists” and “political Islamists”. Why don’t they get a look in?

We are told not to ignore “the fact that across the Middle East and North Africa, Islamist parties are frequently more vocal in their support for democracy than their secular counterparts” (p41). So what? They’re only advocating democracy because they see it as a means to an end – power. Anyway, that is an argument not to engage with those (unnamed) secular groups, not an argument to engage with Islamists.  You are left wondering what Islamists would have to do to convince ippr not to engage with them. Advocating violence would not be enough (p43) and the Muslim Brotherhood’s moves away from liberalisation are actually taken as an argument for engaging with them (p41).

So what kind of engagement are ippr advocating with these people they have so singularly failed to make the case for engaging? There is a good clue on page thirteen.

Changes to Egypt’s constitution that have made the Shari’a the ‘main source’ of legislation have enabled [emphasis added] the Brotherhood to retract its claim that the Egyptian government is apostate.

According to ippr, it was the Egyptian government’s fault for being secular that the Muslim Brotherhood had to use violence against it. Some might call it engagement despite the fact that, to begin, Egypt was requird to give up the most fundamental aspect of its previously secular nature.  Others, more accurately perhaps, would call it capitulation.

Despite its plea that readers not misinterpret the project “as implicit support for [Islamists'] political agendas” (p6), ippr here has made a virtue of acceding to Islamist demands. The same is seen on page fifteen.

Unfortunately, [the Brotherhood's release of a draft policy platform] did not generate the wider policy debate that the Brotherhood had hoped for. Instead, it prompted a re-emergence of concerns about the Brotherhood’s stance on equalities and human rights, particularly as a result of the document’s assertion that non-Muslims and women should not be allowed to hold senior leadership roles within the state.

Why would it be “unfortunate” unless you are allying yourself with the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the non-Muslims and women whom the draft policy would have discriminated against?

What is ippr up to? Rather than chosing partners on the basis of genuine shared values, ippr seem to have chosen to make common cause with the Muslim Brotherhood simply because they are Islamists. Instead of pretending that the Brotherhood are moderate progressives, why not ally with groups that actually are?

******************************

During the weekend, the British police announced that they had arrested 32 white extremists in Northern England and uncovered huge stocks of rocket-launchers, hand grenades and explosives. The men, at least one of who appears to be a member of the British National Party, were apparently planning attacks on Muslims and mosques around the UK.

Andy Hull from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has previously proposed for the government to tackle Islamist violence by working with and funding non-violent Islamists. Seeking to apply his theories to similarly tackling white racist violence, I have taken the liberty of editing one of his papers on this subject in order to see how it would likewise address the problem of white racist violence.

My only changes are to replace references to Islamist extremism with references to white racism and to change the examples given as appropriate. (With apologies to Andy Hull):

‘Stopping bombs and standing up for what we believe in’

We need a twin track approach to counter-terrorism and community cohesion. It has to be both principled and pragmatic. We must work with non-violent racists and mainstream whites, while practising the values we preach.

This has become clearer in the past few weeks, with the publication of an updated version of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST.  It is an impressive statement of purpose: tackling violent white supremacist terrorists. However, a number of Cabinet ministers, former racists and others have argued before and since that we should also now go further and tackle not only violent racism but lawful, non-violent racism too.

Along these lines, Policy Exchange have published a report, Choosing our friends wisely, co-authored by former extremist Shiraz Maher, which provides a list of nine sorts of people the ‘government must not engage’. If government actually followed this advice, they would find themselves unable to engage, among others, the United States, Israel or the Catholic Church. The report insists upon the need for government to ‘do due diligence’ on the groups it engages.

Readers may remember another recent Policy Exchange report of a similarly negative vein, The hijacking of British Islam, based in part, according to the BBC, upon fabricated receipts. Choosing our friends wisely states that the government’s criteria for engagement with groups ‘are so vague and open-ended as to be almost meaningless… characterised by opaque and jargon-filled language – employing terms that are too often left undefined’. It promises ‘clarity and rigour’ to address this ‘imprecision’. And then its final recommendation reads: ‘The government must promote and incentivise good behaviour and disincentivise bad behaviour’.

Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith have flown this flag in Cabinet and in their public pronouncements. Not content with tackling violent white racists and their apologists, they want to tackle views which fall short of breaking the law or inciting violence, such as advocating the forced repatriation of immigrants and the prohibition of mixed-race marriages, or promoting the view that minority – in particular white working class – communities are oppressed or repressed in society. Seeming to prefer freedom of opinion to freedom of expression, they contend that such views are all right so long as they are not voiced in public.

Many young whites growing up in the UK today buy conspiracy theories about Islam and Muslims and believe – against a backdrop of widespread deprivation among Britain’s white working class – that they are indeed repressed, and they say so. They may well not be right, but can they really all be extremists?

The argument [from certain anti-racist think tanks] runs that the linkage between non-violent and violent extremism is underplayed: that non-violent racism is a gateway drug – the marijuana to Nazism’s cocaine. This claim is unproven.

When the Home Secretary lambasts as extremists ‘the groups that fail to speak out and condemn violence when any reasonable person would be outraged’ one can’t help but worry that the Thought Police have arrived and a modern McCarthyism is just around the corner. We need government for all the people, not just those with whom we agree. Choosing our friends wisely must not mean we talk only to our friends.

We must have two aims in all of this: save lives and build a cohesive society. The two are inextricably linked. A surefire way to set community cohesion back in this country is for another bomb to go off. A community-based approach to counter-terrorism is required. Communities can provide warning, when Aryan terror groups won’t. They can help the police both to understand what might be of concern and to avoid unnecessary grievance. And, as a last resort, they can help them into a teenager’s bedroom – or give them the keys to churches and community centres – when they don’t want to have to kick the door down.

In this context, engagement with law-abiding, non-violent racists can play a valuable role. Shared interests, if not ideologies, are paramount: it is not in our interests or theirs for white supremacist terrorists to mount another attack. That is not to say we have to agree with them on the forced repatriation of immigrants or the genetic inferiority of black people, but it does mean we have some important common ground, and we should make the most of it.

In Yorkshire, a former National Front supporter, Nick Griffin, is now a politician denouncing terrorism as a bad thing. White working class individuals like Mark Collett running the British National Party out of a bedsit in Leeds are also doing vital counter-radicalisation work with young men in Northern England. In the US too, David Duke, working with former Ku Klux Klan members, is working to counter radicalisation among young whites in Alabama and Texas. These grassroots initiatives are delivered by charismatic individuals with real credibility among the vulnerable young people with whom they work.

We do not need dogmatic prescription at a national level proscribing partnership work on the ground. Radicalisation is a fundamentally personal process. The choice as to whom to engage should be left to professional practitioners in accountable public bodies who know the local characters. Disengagement should be a line for us to retreat behind, not start from.

Non-violent racists are much more likely to come across white power terrorist recruiters and recruits than moderate white people, who do not move in those circles. And unlike most mainstream white leaders, Nazism’s racist critics have the credentials to make their criticism bite. If, as seasoned former counter-terrorism officer, Bob Lambert, observes, ‘Aryan terrorist groups value dozens of recruits over hundreds of supporters’, can the government really afford to do business only with moderates?

This is not paying Danegeld or what Martin Bright, again writing for Policy Exchange, has labelled a ‘bizarre policy of appeasement’: it is the prevention of terrorism in a plural democracy. To suggest that government engagement – be it dialogue, debate, or judicious sponsorship – with the sort of non-violent white supremacists described above is tantamount to government endorsement of all of their views is lazy. We can and do engage and criticise simultaneously.

And let us not forget that people can change their politics over time. Our own Cabinet is replete with former extremists, radicals and revolutionaries: Alistair Darling was a supporter of the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International, Alan Johnson was a Marxist, and Peter Mandelson was a member of the Young Communist League. Martin Luther King was a radical cleric and the Archbishop of Canterbury was once arrested at a CND march.

The Home and Communities Secretaries for their part display a fundamental lack of ambition. What allows extremist views to gain traction in some segments of our society is not the fact that we’re too quiet in defence of our values but rather that we’re too loud in espousing them while being too timid in their application.

The way to respond to the challenge, and to strengthen moderate voices over all others, is to acknowledge that our values are simultaneously the statement of the country we want to be but also the standard against which we identify how and where we’re falling short.  Where we do fall short, as we do in many areas, not least on the inclusion of minorities, it is the moderate voice that needs to shout loudest and the state itself that needs to come to its aid. When racking their brains for a hearts and minds strategy, members of the Cabinet could do worse than to think Bill of Rights.

We will defeat extremism when we demonstrate even to those with a grievance that our values in their hands are a powerful weapon for redress. We will win this struggle, in other words, not by talking the talk more loudly but by walking the walk. Where is the companion to CONTEST, the statement that honestly acknowledges that as a society we still have a long road to travel towards deeper democracy and real equality and that explains how a Labour government intends to renew and refresh, for this generation, the historic struggle for a country that is more reflective of the values we profess?

With apologies to Andy Hull from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR).