Professor Robert Barrington explores the implications of using anti-terrorist laws against Palestine Action, arguing that civil society plays a key role in the UK’s anti-corruption architecture and applying such laws to campaigners can set a dangerous precedent which a future government could abuse to silence its critics and cover up corruption.

I have no idea whether Palestine Action (PA) is a terrorist organisation.  I do know that it has been designated as such by the UK government.  There may be unpublished intelligence that suggests PA may be planning to hurt or kill civilians.  They have not done this to date, and the information that is in the public domain suggests this is not their intent.

Critics of the designation point out the difference between direct action in protesting, which governments tend not to like, and terrorism, which most people understand to mean using violence against civilians for ideological or political ends.

At face value, we can see that breaking into a military base is a bad thing, especially if done by terrorists.  By the same logic, breaking into a weapons-manufacturing site risks damaging our national security and – if it were carried out by terrorists – reducing our capability to fight back or putting weapons into the wrong hands.

Those who carry out direct action – whether over Palestine or climate change or any other cause – often claim that other courses of action are not working.  They need something eye-catching.  They are being disruptive, but are not being destructive.  They may be a pain in the neck – think of the eco-warriors closing the M25 – but are they terrorists? They certainly do not believe themselves to be terrorists in any widely-understood sense.  They are clearly law-breakers – and there are a number of laws under which they could be prosecuted without applying anti-terrorism laws.

But in the eyes of the law, in the UK, PA can be labelled as terrorists.  Under the Terrorism Act 2000 this applies if they plan or carry out ‘serious damage to property’ if that is ‘designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public’ and when that is ‘for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’ This applies not just to the ‘terrorists’ themselves, but to anyone expressing support for PA – via a tweet, a cardboard placard or any other means.

The PA designation gives us a glimpse of the extraordinary powers that governments have to control their citizens, often using arguments that are convenient or expedient.  Of course, this is complicated.  If right wing thugs were designated as terrorists, many of those who deplore the designation of PA might instead be applauding.

But all of this will make anti-corruption campaigners uneasy. 

A strong theme in the literature on corruption ( for example, Johnston 2005, Grimes 2013, Mungiu-Pippidi 2013, Villaneuva 2019, Barrington & David-Barrett 2023) is the role played by civil society in holding those in power to account – through research, investigations, disseminating information, public education, and protest.  David-Barrett describes how ‘Civil society organisations perform a watchdog role over government, and those specializing in anti-corruption work often have considerable technical expertise to compile and communicate evidence about corrupt practices’ (David-Barrett 2023).

We may feel that the current Labour government is a long way from applying its anti-terrorist powers to anti-corruption organisations.  However, other countries have been doing so.  In Turkey, for example, anti-terrorism laws have been used to silence academics who have criticised the Erdogan government (Baser et al 2017).  Barely a year ago, most people might have said that western liberal democracies are a long way from being like Turkey.  Since then, elections have been dominated by a wave of right-wing populists, and the Trump administration in the USA has shown how no democracy or constitutional settlement is immune from those who wish to use the powers of the state to attack or take revenge on their perceived enemies.

The Johnson government gave the UK a glimpse of what it is to be led by a Prime Minister and cabinet who are happy to drive a coach and horses through norms and principles for the sake of political expediency, self-interest and ideology.  It looked very like corruption.  In opposition (though not so far in government), Keir Starmer rightly highlighted the risk of corruption if proper checks and balances are not in place.  The same applies to anti-terrorism laws.  If the Starmer government can use them to target Palestine Action, a corrupt government  could use such laws to neutralise anti-corruption campaigners.   Don’t believe it could not happen in the UK – look across the Atlantic, and think of where Johnson or Truss might have taken us.

Regarding PA, based on the facts that are in the public domain, it is hard to disagree with the UN Human Rights chief Volker Turk, who said ‘The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary.’  It looks like a complete nonsense to have designated Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation even if that is legally possible, however challenging or annoying they might be to those in power.  And this is the key point: the PA case shows us that a government can take, fully within the law, draconian action against ordinary people trying to protest.  

Precisely because this is an emotive issue, it is easy to overlook the points of principle that are most troubling here.  What we are seeing on display is the extent of government power and the ways in which it can be deployed against protestors.  If PA are terrorists in any conventional sense, then evidence should be put in the public domain.  If the problem is trespass or criminal damage, other laws are available to prosecute them.  If they continue to be branded as terrorists, what is PA today may tomorrow be any other civil society group that irritates the government of the day and can be labelled a threat to national security.

Given the era of populism and political instability that we are now in, we should be taking the next few years to future-proof the UK against corruption, rather than normalising government actions which may come back to haunt us.

References

Barrington, Robert, and Elizabeth David-Barrett. “Advocacy groups.” In Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Corruption Law, pp. 12-15. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023.

Baser, Bahar, Samim Akgönül, and Ahmet Erdi Öztürk. ““Academics for Peace” in Turkey: A case of criminalising dissent and critical thought via counterterrorism policy.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 10, no. 2 (2017): 274-296.

Dávid-Barrett, Elizabeth. “State capture and development: a conceptual framework.” Journal of international relations and development, 1-21. 23 March 2023.

Grimes, Marcia. “The contingencies of societal accountability: Examining the link between civil society and good government.” Studies in comparative international development 48, no. 4 (2013): 380-402.

Johnston, Michael, ed. Civil society and corruption: mobilizing for reform. University Press of America, 2005.

Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina. “Controlling corruption through collective action.” Journal of Democracy 24, no. 1 (2013): 101-115.

Villanueva, Prince Aian G. “Why Civil Society Cannot Battle It All Alone: The Roles of Civil Society Environment, Transparent Laws and Quality of Public Administration in Political Corruption Mitigation.” International Journal of Public Administration 43, no. 6 (2019): 552–61.