The British government, like its European and US counterparts, has been struggling to find an effective strategy to counter “radicalisation” within Muslim communities. When programmes like Prevent were established, they quickly came under heavy criticism, both for their approach and for their poor results. Over a decade on, it is clear not a single anti-radicalisation scheme, either in Europe or the US, has proved effective.
There are several reasons for this. To begin with there is the terminology employed. Religious radicalisation is described as a process through which individuals pursue a continuing trajectory, leading from a “moderate” understanding and practice of religion, to an increasingly violent or extremist involvement. Nothing could be further from reality.
The religious practice of the overwhelming majority of those caught up by Isis propaganda is weak at best, and mostly partial or very recent. This diagnosis has been reconfirmed time and time again since 11 September 2001. Far from being “radicalised”, such vulnerable individuals slide into terrorist action not because they are supportive of Isis and its claim to “Islam”, but for mostly non-religious reasons. To respond to a complex phenomenon only by pointing to signs of increased religiosity in a given individual, or by targeting a community or a specific religious profile, is unlikely to work.
Undoubtedly religious interpretation plays a role: extremist and literalist readings of Islam’s source texts exist, and can only be countered by solid arguments produced by Muslim scholars whose credibility is widely recognised. Individual profiles are also a crucial factor, as are social status, unemployment, drug use and psychological imbalance.
Young people may be drawn to a cause that purports to lend new meaning to their lives, allows them to overcome their daily frustrations, and even gives them feelings of pride. But in such instances they must be seen more as propaganda victims than as consciously responsible for their actions, however extreme.
At the European Muslim Network, a thinktank I chair in Brussels, we have heard many testimonies of young boys and girls being manipulated via the internet or through dubious social contacts, who are completely disconnected from Muslim communities. Such individuals should be dealt with according to their background; if we focus solely on security concerns related to religious expression, any action will fall short of its target.
Politics must also be singled out as a prime cause of citizens slipping into violence – an issue on which deradicalisation programmes are almost entirely mute. Acts of violence do not take place in a political vacuum. As early as 2005, the then prime minister Tony Blair refused to admit any connection between British foreign policy and radicalisation. Though nothing can justify the killing of innocent civilians in London or Paris, any more than in Damascus or Baghdad, it’s clear that western policies in the Middle East have led to high levels of frustration and may well explain why some individuals have adopted extremist views.
Silence on the Palestinian tragedy, western intervention in Iraq and ambiguity in Syria, not to mention support for the Saudi war against Yemen, has provided ample material for young people to question incoherent western policies. So to deny the role of politics is not only inconsistent; it is above all counterproductive.
This is made even worse when political expression is itself seen as a potential indicator of radicalisation. The struggle against violent extremism must simultaneously protect freedom of speech, particularly when practised by Muslims. The possibility that anyone can express their dissatisfaction, frustration and disagreement without becoming immediately suspected or stigmatised is, in itself, a powerful protective measure against those who call for violence. Those Muslims who are critical of government policies while rejecting violence are perhaps best placed to influence young people attracted to extremist acts.
Numerous testimonies across Europe and the US confirm that these measures are not targeting the terrorists but targeting all Muslims. Over the past five years I have met increasing numbers of Muslim women – both in Europe and the US – who fear being visibly religious and have begun to refrain from wearing their headscarves in public. Some individuals have been jailed in the UK, Germany and in Belgium, or have been detained under house arrest in France, because of so-called suspicious activities – such as visiting a website, or for expressing their views on Syria or Palestine which are deemed “dangerous”. We will not get peaceful societies if we fear intellectual arguments.
The struggle against violent extremism requires a comprehensive approach that brings together all shades of opinion. However, the vast majority of government programmes are narrowly focused on security, favour short-term measures, and are inclined to see Muslim communities as seedbeds of potential violence to be kept under constant surveillance. In fact, security and surveillance have become the two dominant aspects of deradicalisation strategies.
What is needed instead is a plan that deals with the phenomenon at many different levels and, first and foremost, focuses on grassroots education. To do this, local Muslim organisations must accept full partnership. Communication needs to be established with such groups to help build confidence in state institutions. At present, those organisations – the “good Muslims”– which the government collaborates with or finances, frequently enjoy no street credibility: how could they, if they never criticise the domestic or foreign policies of their government sponsor?
We must add to this the task of mapping the diversity of social, political and religious trends, and the unanimous rejection of extremist violence. The frustration of individuals must be taken seriously: problems should be identified, and greater social justice and social cohesion established, even though the results may not appear immediately.
An in-depth review of current political rhetoric is imperative. Our politicians are ethicising and Islamising the question of violent extremism in order to avoid dealing with real issues. The politics of fear must be abandoned. To act against violent extremism does not mean snooping on every single “sign of radicalisation”, or criminalising every individual, or group of individuals involved.
The UK government has created an atmosphere of suspicion and stigmatisation of Muslims. An effect of this will ultimately be to nurture the very radicalisation they wish to eradicate. A re-examination of strategy is required, going beyond security and surveillance, and placing greater emphasis on education, partnership, and the social and political factors at play. Unfortunately we are very far from this goal.
