Deconstructing the Shariatic Justification of Suicide Bombings

Deconstructing the shariatic justification of suicide bombings reveals a standard reasoning based on four arguments. Two of them relativize the shariatic prohibition against suicide whereas the other two analogize suicide bombings with the medieval combat tactic of plunging alone into the enemy. Prerequisites of a “martyrdom operation” are the suicide bomber's intention to seek martyrdom and his ability to damage the enemy. The reasoning declares the killing of oneself for the sake of Islam permissible and thereby distinguishes “martyrdom operations” from suicide. Deconstructing this and other Islamist doctrines of violence can be of operational use to intelligence and criminal investigations.     

Disability and Its Correlates in a Developing Country Context: Evidence from Multiple Datasets and Measures

Disability profiles showing how the magnitude of disability differs across subgroups of a population are important tools in designing effective policies. Yet little is known about the sensitivity of the correlates of disability to the way disability is measured. This study uses an unprecedentedly large amount of nationally representative survey data from Indonesia. Based on 13 different datasets that were collected between 2000 and 2014, and which together contain disability information on more than 1 billion individuals, we assess how robust disability profiles are to measurement issues. Our findings suggest that irrespective of the dataset and measure used, disability is disproportionally more common among the poor, the elderly and rural areas in the country. Hence, Indonesian policies on poverty reduction, population ageing, and rural development should pay particular attention to how they reach and affect persons with disabilities. Our research further reveals that the gender gap in disability is highly sensitive to measurement issues with different datasets and measures reaching different conclusions about the size and direction of the gap.     

From Competition and Collusion to Consent-Based Collaboration: A Case Study of Local Democracy

The high distrust in political institutions and a growing sense of powerlessness among many citizens suggest that prevailing democratic governance systems lack a capability for collective dialogue and learning. The key thesis here is that public governance systems can benefit from organizational arrangements informed by circular design. A case study conducted at a Dutch municipality illustrates how principles of circular design served to enhance the city council’s role of orchestrator of civil participation. This case also illustrates how a local democracy, which has long suffered from majority–minority ploys and voting schemes, can be transformed into a consent-based culture of collaboration.