About Article

Firstly, it usually holds true that in order to solve a problem, one has to know what the problem is. But the definition of the problem, in this case terrorism, is a problem in itself. There are hundreds of definitions (Schmid and Jongman 1988) and at least five major categories in which a government can perceive the problem of terrorism: as a form of war, a criminal problem, an issue of national security or a threat to the democratic order and process, a societal problem, or a problem of safety and security in a stricter sense. If authorities do not agree upon what constitutes terrorism, one can hardly expect that it will be fought effectively. Secondly, just as there are definitional problems, there is little agreement as to what causes terrorism (e.g. Bjørgo 2005, Richardson 2006). Some observers focus on so-called root causes like humiliation or economic distress, while others see the causes more or less as a result of the way the state interacts with certain groups in society or in other nations. Even if there would be agreement among, say, academics as to what make terrorists ‘tick’, many policy-makers disregard academic findings. A famous example is that time and again academic research indicates that poverty and lack of education are not among the real causes of terrorism; nevertheless, many good-willing politicians continue to claim that these matters are primary causes (Krueger and Maleckova 2003, Engene 2004, pp. 88, 168–169, Berrebi 2007).