How Democratic and Authoritarian regimes talk about terrorism

What is it about?

As securitization often involves transnational issues, we need a better understanding of how such securitization processes mutually reinforce or contradict each other. Differences in political systems and political cultures increase the risk that audience reactions as well as routinizations run counter the interests informing the initial securitizing move. In the case of relations between European and Arab countries, the overlap and tensions associated with different political calculi behind such transnational processes are particularly relevant in terms of the fallout, which the securitization of the so-called Islamic State’s terrorism produces for political reform in the Arab world as well as for political discourses on Islam and Islamism in Europe.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The risk of counterproductive securitization is exacerbated in situations where securitizing actors on both sides of the international divide are emphasizing the external dimension of the threat they face. While this might, at first glance, support international cooperation, the disagreement over the exact nature of what gave rise to the problem in the first instance makes both sides talk past each other. The international response to the brutal murder of teacher Samuel Paty shows how securitization processes linked to the defence of freedom of speech in one context can serve securitization processes to the perceived threats to religion in another. All of this suggests that the transnational dimension of securitization remains a fruitful avenue for future research.