Security is a responsibility, prevention is a decision, and building people is a national duty

Terrorism does not arise from nothing, and extremism cannot be confronted with slogans. Destabilising security and stability is among the chief aims of terrorist organisations, which operate within networks that exploit crises, divisions and weak points in societies to achieve their goals. But the question we must face clearly is this: how does the environment that allows extremism to grow take shape? And who is responsible for addressing its causes before they become a threat to the nation’s security and stability?

Methodologically, a distinction must be made between extremism as an intellectual orientation marked by rigidity and rejection of others, and terrorism as a practice based on violence, or the threat of it, to achieve particular aims, spread fear and undermine the stability of society and the state. Not every extremist is a terrorist, and not everyone who suffers from poverty or marginalisation is susceptible to extremism. But terrorist groups may exploit frustration, exclusion and a closed horizon to recruit individuals and turn them into tools in a project that targets the homeland, its institutions and the security of its citizens.

Here the most important question arises: what makes some individuals more susceptible to recruitment? And what is the responsibility of the state and society in reducing the conditions that extremist groups exploit?

A wise friend once said to me a phrase worth reflecting on: “When a person is a worker, busy with the demands of daily life, their greatest ambition is to return home and enjoy a restful sleep, and to greet the next day with dignity and peace of mind. But when they find themselves trapped in emptiness, exclusion, helplessness and neglect, they may accept the first hand that pats them on the shoulder and gives them a sense of worth and belonging.”

This phrase captures an important part of the problem. Decent work, a sense of justice, equal opportunity and a future to look forward to all strengthen national belonging. Unemployment, marginalisation, closed opportunities and weak trust in institutions, on the other hand, can become gaps that extremist groups exploit for recruitment and mobilisation.

This does not mean that poverty creates terrorism, or that emptiness inevitably leads to extremism. The factors behind these phenomena are many and intertwined. But ignoring the social, economic and intellectual conditions that can be exploited is nothing more than a failure of diagnosis and an inability to build effective preventive policy.

The state bears a basic responsibility here, one that cannot be sidestepped or reduced to its security dimension alone. The state is responsible for public policy, equal opportunity, institutional efficiency, the protection of rights, and creating an environment in which citizens can work, take part and feel that they belong. This is matched by the severest penalties for extremists, terrorists, their supporters and the builders of their networks.

Combating extremism begins in school, university, the workplace and the family, and even inside prison for those convicted of a crime. It also begins with state institutions that should listen to citizens, respond to their demands, fight corruption and nepotism, guarantee equal opportunity, and open real paths for young people to participate and to produce. Lasting security is not achieved through deterrence alone, but by building a society in which its members feel they have a place and a future in their homeland.

At the same time, placing responsibility on the state does not mean excusing terrorism or releasing the individual from their legal and moral responsibility. Circumstances do not justify violence, extremism, or granting anyone the right to threaten society. A sensible response combines firmness in applying the law, seriousness in tackling root causes, and a distinction between intellectual difference, extremism, incitement and terrorist crime.

As for the armchair theorists who raise slogans of firmness and distribute advice and statements of condemnation from the comfort of their screens, the question for them is simple: what have you actually done on the ground? How many problems have you helped solve? How many opportunities have you opened for a young man who has lost hope? How many policies have you reviewed objectively, rather than repeating the same rhetoric after every incident? I am certain that any of us can name people who were passed over, while a pass was granted to others through your favouritism.

It is not difficult to demand firmness after the danger has occurred, and many have written and commented on that. What is difficult is preventing its causes before they arise. Repeating that terrorism is the enemy of the homeland is no achievement. The real achievement is closing the doors through which it tries to enter, building institutions that enjoy people’s trust, and turning the fight against extremism from seasonal reactions into a sustained national policy, subject to evaluation and accountability.

That is why I chose to write not about the incident itself, but about what must be done to prevent repetition, and to dry up the sources that make things easier for those who seek destruction, may God curse them, and to paralyse their minds and hands. What is needed is not more statements, but a clear and real programme of work built on core areas:

Employment and economic empowerment: creating real job opportunities, expanding vocational training and strengthening equal opportunity, especially for young people. The result should be real employment, not a figure displayed on a screen at an official opening ceremony.
Justice and building trust: addressing grievances and complaints, fighting corruption and nepotism, and widening participation in public life. The result should be listening to citizens and genuine change for those who have demanded their rights.
Prevention and awareness: developing and amending the regulatory laws, and strengthening the role of educational, media and community institutions in promoting critical thinking and countering incitement and hate speech.

Institutional coordination: unifying preventive efforts across government, security, educational and social bodies, while respecting the law and individual rights. The result should be clear crisis management and a precise language for addressing the public, as I recently heard from His Excellency the Director of Public Security, who received full marks for it.

Follow-up and accountability: defining the responsibilities of the relevant bodies, setting measurable indicators, and assessing actual results rather than merely announcing initiatives.

These proposals should not remain confined to papers and meetings. They should be turned into specific plans with budgets, timetables and declared responsibilities, subject to regular review of their results. The true measure of a policy’s success is not the number of programmes launched, but its impact on people’s lives, and its capacity to build trust in institutions and reduce the vulnerabilities that extremist groups may exploit.

Patriotism is not high-pitched rhetoric, nor competitive displays of loyalty, nor ready-made accusations against society. Patriotism is responsibility, action and results. Whoever speaks about national security must understand that protecting the homeland begins with protecting the individual, that the authority of the state is consolidated through the justice of its institutions, and that lasting stability is built on trust, fairness and the rule of law, not on fear alone.

So let us call things by their names. Terrorism is a crime that demands firmness. Extremism is a danger that demands confrontation. Exclusion, unemployment and a closed horizon are problems that demand treatment. Shortcomings in public policy demand accountability.

Countries are not protected by shouting from behind screens, nor saved by slogans that end when the programmes end. They are protected by serious work, a state that bears its responsibilities, a cohesive society, and a citizen who feels that their dignity is secure and their future is not closed off.

Whoever truly wants to fight terrorism should stop merely condemning its results, and begin treating the causes that can be treated. Beyond all of that, we say only this: may God have mercy on the martyrs of the homeland, and protect and guard the homeland, its leader and its people from all harm.