Are democracies sufficiently equipped to deal with terrorism?
- Popular wall paintings
- Painting in Society
- Instrumentalization and commodification
The terrorism of the twentieth century has witnessed major changes after the Cold War. To quote Jean-François Gayraud David and Senate, the terrorism of the Cold War "was a phenomenon certainly impressive and deadly, but a marginal fear or folk, led by heavy and permanent entities. It was homeopathic, ideological and pyramidal. It rested on three pillars: the indirect strategy. Terrorism was seen as a maneuver to bypass the opponent, a political essence, and a political motive was at the heart of the movement. International terrorism was being carried out by more or less organized groups controlled or recovered by the special services of the state. The terrorism of "global chaos", meanwhile, has become "massively de-territorialized, irrational, mutant, fluid, criminalized, and de-nationalized (). This high intensity terrorism differs from the former by a double shift of policy towards the villainous and controlled to the irrational. "How does democracy react, and cope with this bad boy of the era of human rights? What measures are implemented and how? To answer this, it is necessary to analyze the preventive measures that democracies have implemented to prevent the terrorist threat and to avoid confrontation with the terrorist phenomenon, and the repressive measures which derogate from common law even the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Fusion of the accidents of history, built over numerous imperatives of security, counter-terrorism structures in France are complex and heterogeneous. We can nevertheless identify three levels: political, administrative level, the operational level. The fight should not be the only result of the state and society as a whole is concerned: the public, the media, elected officials and finally academics.