The announcement that the new government is going to review counter-terrorism policy is a welcome one. I am particularly pleased that the review is likely to mean an end for the prevent strand. Whilst in many ways the aims behind prevent are good- getting to the root causes of terrorism, and stopping people from getting engaged in terrorism before they even start- what it has meant in practice in terms of damaging civil liberties and targeting particular communities is problematical.
Alongside this review of counter-terrorism we’ve got the announcement that there will be a 40% increase in aid to Afghanistan. I welcome this, as it seems to me that development is a better way of tackling the root causes of terrorism than either a prevent strategy that damages civil liberties, or an offensive strategy in Afghanistan where more bad feeling is created by what is perceived as occupation by western troops. That does not mean I am entirely comfortably with using aid budgets to tie in with military objectives, or that I would not prefer the money to be diverted from the military’s budget instead of other aid budgets, but it is a positive step at least.
An important problem in this whole debate is whether we can ascertain what the root causes of terrorism are in order to stop them. This is incredibly difficult, and I am sceptical of anyone who tells me they know for definite what the root causes are. I am tempted to argue that poverty and inequality breed terrorism, but there is insufficient empirical evidence to prove this. Some academic studies have found that civil liberties issues, not poverty, are more likely to lead to terrorism (see for example Malečková’s chapter in Root Causes of Terrorism: myths, reality and ways forward Ed. T Bjorgo, Routledge, 2005).
So while there are many unknowns in this debate, my opinion is that increasing aid to Afghanistan has to be a good thing as development is an essential requirement for that country, regardless of whether there is a link to terrorism. And the end of prevent is likely to improve civil liberties in our country, and so has to be a positive step. After all, as Paul Wilkinson has commented, any tyrant can stop terrorists if they are willing to ignore people’s rights (in Terrorism and the Liberal State 1977, p.121), the problem is how to stop terrorism without losing our values.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Sunday, 11 July 2010
A progressive way of teaching history?
Michael Gove has apparently asked Niall Ferguson to re-write the history curriculum for schools. I’m not convinced this is a good idea. Apparently Ferguson plans to introduce more use of TV, and the use of war games to encourage learning (reported in The Guardian).
There has to be more to teaching history than war. Whilst wars have often been the turning points for change, history is also about our economic development, the story of how ordinary lives have changed, political development in other parts of the world, and so much more. I’m sure that there are more progressive ways to create stimulating learning activities, including using simulations, without the need to focus on war.
Most worrying, perhaps, is the fact that Ferguson is so positive about empire. He has always been a controversial figure, and claims that empire has had a positive impact on world history. This leads him to argue for more empire, for example for the US to impose democracy and capitalism forcefully on Iraq with long-term imperial rule (for example here).
He appears to believe that it is a good thing for the west to impose what it perceives to be the best forms of government on others, by military force if necessary. I’ve never really understood this sort of argument- how can you impose democracy on people if they don’t want it?
I hope that any new curriculum is balanced, and encourages students to be critical about what they see and hear. Ferguson’s willingness to argue against the tide of public and academic opinion would imply this may well be a possibility, so I hope it is this aspect of his work that is prominent in any review of the curriculum. And I like his view that teaching history should be about narrative- after all, history is ultimately a long story of how we got to where we are now.
Interestingly, Ferguson admits that whilst his sons like the war-games he has been developing for teaching history, his daughter is not so interested. Perhaps this is a sign that more work is needed to reach the stated aim of designing a curriculum that makes students want to learn.
There has to be more to teaching history than war. Whilst wars have often been the turning points for change, history is also about our economic development, the story of how ordinary lives have changed, political development in other parts of the world, and so much more. I’m sure that there are more progressive ways to create stimulating learning activities, including using simulations, without the need to focus on war.
Most worrying, perhaps, is the fact that Ferguson is so positive about empire. He has always been a controversial figure, and claims that empire has had a positive impact on world history. This leads him to argue for more empire, for example for the US to impose democracy and capitalism forcefully on Iraq with long-term imperial rule (for example here).
He appears to believe that it is a good thing for the west to impose what it perceives to be the best forms of government on others, by military force if necessary. I’ve never really understood this sort of argument- how can you impose democracy on people if they don’t want it?
I hope that any new curriculum is balanced, and encourages students to be critical about what they see and hear. Ferguson’s willingness to argue against the tide of public and academic opinion would imply this may well be a possibility, so I hope it is this aspect of his work that is prominent in any review of the curriculum. And I like his view that teaching history should be about narrative- after all, history is ultimately a long story of how we got to where we are now.
Interestingly, Ferguson admits that whilst his sons like the war-games he has been developing for teaching history, his daughter is not so interested. Perhaps this is a sign that more work is needed to reach the stated aim of designing a curriculum that makes students want to learn.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Tackling re-offending
Ken Clarke’s recent announcement that the new government will be tackling re-offending should be welcomed. When almost 60% of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months re-offend within a year, it raises questions about existing policy and practice.
I’m glad that the government is not engaging in the usual competition to sound the toughest on crime- it’s not whether you sound tough on crime that is important, but whether crime is falling, and people are less frightened of crime.
One of the things Ken Clarke has proposed is a scheme to use private companies to tackle re-offending. Whilst I am not keen on using private companies for this, the general principle is right. When someone leaves prison they need help and support to get their lives back on the right track- whether that be finding a house, job-hunting, training, tackling drug or alcohol addiction and so on.
In Hull there is currently a project involving the police, probation, the local prison and the council which is tackling some of these issues. It’s probably too early to see what the impact is, but I have high hopes for the project.
It costs around £40,000 per prisoner per year in prison. The costs of improved rehabilitation are likely to be a lot lower than this as well as bringing wider benefits. However, it is not a quick and easy solution, and it will need resources to make it work.
Labour recently made some large budget cuts to the probation service, but in my view probation is one of the most important aspects of the criminal justice system, and one that is too often neglected. If the government is serious about this agenda it will need to ensure probation has the resources to tackle re-offending effectively. In the long-term this has to bring overall savings and safer communities.
I’m glad that the government is not engaging in the usual competition to sound the toughest on crime- it’s not whether you sound tough on crime that is important, but whether crime is falling, and people are less frightened of crime.
One of the things Ken Clarke has proposed is a scheme to use private companies to tackle re-offending. Whilst I am not keen on using private companies for this, the general principle is right. When someone leaves prison they need help and support to get their lives back on the right track- whether that be finding a house, job-hunting, training, tackling drug or alcohol addiction and so on.
In Hull there is currently a project involving the police, probation, the local prison and the council which is tackling some of these issues. It’s probably too early to see what the impact is, but I have high hopes for the project.
It costs around £40,000 per prisoner per year in prison. The costs of improved rehabilitation are likely to be a lot lower than this as well as bringing wider benefits. However, it is not a quick and easy solution, and it will need resources to make it work.
Labour recently made some large budget cuts to the probation service, but in my view probation is one of the most important aspects of the criminal justice system, and one that is too often neglected. If the government is serious about this agenda it will need to ensure probation has the resources to tackle re-offending effectively. In the long-term this has to bring overall savings and safer communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)