P Ramasamy's analysis of radical Islam (Jan16) offers what is now pretty much stock-in-trade of the anti-West lobby. There is a whole lot to agree with what he said but there are also a few questionable points raised.

First, as the writer points out, there is little doubt that the rise in radical Islam is either a result of, or at least facilitated by, the failure of political processes. This, however, cannot be predominantly the failure of Western political processes but those of the countries in which radicalism seethes.

There has been a great deal of work done on the political elites in these countries and the way they have disengaged the latter religio-conservatives. As a political scientist, the writer would be aware of these.

Second, I am confused. He says that it is not accurate to say that what is represented by Islam and the West are mutually exclusive but then goes on to use the old bi-polar mental constructs. His arguments seem more consistent with the Huntington framework which he disputes. By the way, what is referred to as 'modernisation' could actually be 'modernity', i.e. the culture rather than the process.

Third, if, and we are in agreement on this, radicalism is instigated or perpetuated by the failures of political engagement, it would seem to follow that Islamic radicalism cannot die until its roots do.

That prediction is, in my view, entirely premature. I would submit that how the radical elements are dealt with is not as important as that of building cohesion within Islamic countries as a whole.