Radicalization... deradicalization - why does a moderate person become radicalized?
What does a person need? Although his peace of mind is associated with material things, in reality, a person needs, first of all, inner harmony, that is, the correspondence of his external life with his inner world, the world that he sees should not contradict his spiritual intuitions inherent in his nature. Simply put, a person has a sense of justice, and only when that feeling is satisfied does a person feel good and not enter into conflict with his surroundings. Problems begin because of the dissatisfaction of that feeling.
This is the "formula" for any condition that is not related to physiological or spiritual pathology.
When the primary innate need for justice is not satisfied, a person first feels that "something is wrong." This feeling then prompts them to find those "wrongs" through internal analysis, and gradually leads them to seek out the "means" that are hindering justice.
The next stage is direct reaction. We call the negative manifestation of this reaction "radicalism." There is also radicalism in a positive sense - a person or a nation must sometimes take decisive action to get out of a negative situation. Actions that are radical, but do not go beyond the framework of moral rules - positive radicalism. But now we are talking about the negative - the origin of the one that leads to extremism.
In my article published in Kun.uz, I discussed the factors that lead to radicalism and then extremism, arguing that a person, while fighting for certain good values, can "unknowingly" become a supporter of those values, and that a person who continues on this path can dehumanize people and groups in the next stages - to the point of not accepting a person as a person. As a main factor in this, I mentioned forgetting the moral pillars while defending a good idea. That is, I discussed the fact that forgetting the main aspect of a good idea - that is, what ensures its goodness - leads to a person becoming a supporter of that idea.
Who is to blame?
The answer to the question of who is to blame for a person becoming radicalized and extremist is complex. According to Islamic teachings, life is a test. Therefore, the first culprit is the person himself: for not listening to his heart, but listening to his ego, and acting in an impermissible manner. But this is a separate topic.
There are external factors that can cause a person to become negatively radicalized, put them in a difficult situation, and ruin their lives. During my 10-year "experience" on social media, I have seen several of them: actions that are completely contrary to religion "in defense of religion", cases where actions "for the Motherland" are harmful to the Motherland, actions that are harmful to the nation "in the face of national grief", or "hybrid" situations - when a person, claiming to be defending language, nationality, or the Motherland, goes too far and takes actions that are incompatible with his religion, etc. - I have witnessed all of them.
Every such situation is a loss for the person who does it. I have also seen those who lead people to such loss: I have also seen "historians" who use history to lead young people to fanaticism (while history should make the future better, the past better, and not the other way around), I have seen those who, under the pretext of supposedly promoting a doctrine that has come down to earth to perfect beautiful behavior, instill in thousands of people a kind of moral extremism - a kind of moral extremism.
However, the force that fuels radicalism the most is misguided state policy.
Stalin's "remnants"
The atheist regime did not need religious people, and the regime resolved the issue decisively - leaving only a small remnant of religion, they made it to a state that was acceptable to them. There were several factors that ensured this "success".
The communist regime had a specific idea - to create a "Soviet man". Although this image-man with certain characteristics attacked human nature, it had a certain content (equality, solidarity and other slogans) and this factor ensured the survival of the Soviet regime for a certain time - without it, the regime could not have gained power. It was this power that was potentially enough to marginalize religion.
The Soviet regime had the power to keep its borders closed, and this also made it possible to effectively fight religion - in a closed room, you could manipulate your weak opponent into anything you wanted, without receiving any material or moral support from anywhere.
Generally speaking, the Soviet regime's material and, one might say, spiritual power, albeit a spoof spirituality, was strong enough to keep religion in the position it wanted.
However, after the collapse of the USSR, a completely different reality emerged. In the new reality, the states that emerged had neither the idea nor the ability to close their borders.
Naturally, for example, religion returned to Uzbekistan with force (since it was all in the spiritual code of the people...) and those who came to power had to "do something" with this aspect. We know what happened - religious fervor, which was more unscientific than scientific, clashed with the personal ambitions of politicians, and the situation turned into a regime of restraint for believers. Because there was no way to completely eliminate religion.
Such a policy of "restraint" has many side effects: your attempt to block your people from what is deeply embedded in their spiritual code and what they are yearning for will certainly affect your mentality and, given your limited material resources, will lead you to make many political and economic mistakes.
In other words, the negative economic and social consequences of the Karimov era are not due to his economic illiteracy, but rather the fruit of the mentality that emerged in him during the struggle with religion, a complication of the remnants of Stalin.
The era of new power
Now we come to the most important part of our topic - the current reality. The new government is trying to improve the country's socio-economic situation, in many cases trying to find the right decisions "by feeling" rather than relying on science. Experts say how harmful old concepts are in political and economic approaches to the current situation. However, in another area, old-fashionedness - the legacy of yesterday - is not tolerated - the attitude towards religion and believers.
As we have already said, the Soviet regime pursued its policy based on its potential . And it achieved its goal.
Karimov, on the other hand, spent his energy on a completely unpragmatic path - "restraining radicalism" against the backdrop of limited opportunities and open borders, and the result was the opposite - radical sentiment grew. And as if that were not enough, this decree changed Karimov's attitude towards all spheres. In the end, Karimov was left with an economically ruined country.
The new government would have made it easier for itself if it had abandoned such an extremely unpragmatic path - the path of increasing radical sentiment - and chosen the pragmatic path - keeping healthy believers close to itself and choosing the path of cooperation. It is not for nothing that I repeatedly used the word "pragmatism" here, because this is precisely what we are talking about in terms of pragmatic management.
So, if the path of radicalizing the masses and then not deradicalizing them, but preventing radicalization, is chosen, then this is the same. Using the path of the Soviet regime without having the power is akin to suicide.
Muhammad Shakur