Managing Extremism

Floris VermeulenIMES/Political Science Department/UvA

2

Introduction• Political Science perspective preventive policies

• How can autorities understand the radicalisation process?

• Possible link with debates about integration

• Policy models for local authorities

• Policy dilemma’s

• Radicalisation as a process extremist as a label

3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFx5Bi_E8yk&feature=player_detailpage#t=594

4

Generation Jihad• Young Muslims• Immigration background• Second or third generation immigrants• Born and raised in Western countries (homegrown)• Fundamentalist (recent) non-violent• (Non-)violent extremists• Large numbers, but still tiny minority

5

Political integration second generation Muslims in Europe

• Low political participation• Feeling of detachment• Low representation numbers (decreasing)• Mainstream political parties ignore diversity• Small Islamic parties run by generation• Participation on the basis of Islamicidentity is seen as highly problematic• Double implicit message: you need to Participate/integrate, but only on our liberal secular terms

6

Connection with integration debate

• Failure of Multiculturalism?• Who belongs to the nation?

Ethnic understanding of the nationCivic understandingMonocultural integration policies Multicultural group-based policies

(pluralism)• Excluding those who are different (in terms of norms and

values)• How to accommodate minorities?

7

Citizenship models Koopmans et al. (2005)

8

9

Outcome Integration debates in Europe

Citizenship policies perhaps more civic but recently more restrictive against MuslimsCultural Pluralism less group-based (integration)State engagement problematic especially with religious groupsDefinition and understanding of the problem diversity, Islam, religion, non-Western norms/values are seen as causes of social problems

10

Effects and questions of changing debate

• Possible effect among second generation: Isolation, frustration, anger, detachment, polarisation and mobilisation on religious issues

• Question: how to accommodate minority religious groups in this context?

• How does this relate to the fight against religious extremism?

11

Preventive local policies against extremism

• How to prevent people in your city, district or neighbourhood from becoming a violent extremist?

- Early interventions in the radicalisation process (or pre-emption, not identifying actual extremists)

- Identifying breeding ground and explanatory factors for extremism

- Intervention: target breeding grounds

12

Main factors (breeding grounds) extremismSocial – Immigration, lack of integration, polarisation, segregation, isolation, discrimination Religious/cultural – Incompatiblity Islamic religious norms and values Western values Social-economic – poverty, lack of integration, discriminationPolitical – International political developments, Situation in Middle-East

Struggle to integrate 2nd generation marginalised Islamic immigrant communities into Western liberal society/city

13

BUT, what is a radicalisation process? And do we know how to intervene?

- Complex process with many factors (micro, meso, macro) and rare phenomenon

- Academic debates not resolved: f.i. relationship between non-violent and violent extremism? Does the radicalisation process actually exists or is it invoked by policy makers?

- Studying radicalisation- Defining Extremism

Difficulties of studying radicalisationResearch on radicalization has often focused solely on the small number of known terrorists from which most conclusions about the conditions likely to conduce their actions are drawn, omitting a comparison group of non-terrorist radicals. Conclusions are, then, based on looking at the outliers without comparing them to the hundreds of thousands of people who experienced the same permissive factors, came into contact with the same people, read the same books, and had the same background, but were radicalized (or not) in a very different way. (Barlett & Miller)

Difficulty of defining extremismExtremism is a relational concept (Malik):• It follows that the norm against which the ideas, values or

conduct of the group are being compared is critical to an analysis of whether or not they are ‘‘extremist.’’ In Western states the obvious comparator is provided by the principles of liberal democracy.

• But there are many tensions here, f.i. tensions related to religious diversity freedom of religion and/or equal treatment. And how does this relate to the definition of extremism (are orthodox beliefs extreme?)

15

16

Homegrown terrorism: debates about immigration, democracy and belonging

• Local authorities struggle with homegrown extremism:- The use of violence against fellow citizens- Born and raised in Western societies- Detachment from Western values

• Local authorities see individual extremists as part of local communities that are detached themselves:

- Debates about position of (orthodox) Islam in the West

- Debates about belonging/attachment/integration- Debates about democracy

Which policy models are available?

• When and how can local authorities intervene in the process of radicalisation? They need to think about/target:

• Breeding grounds and explanatory factors• Radicalisation process: from political engagement to non-

violent extremism to violent extremism?• Implicit relationship between radicalisation and

extremism• Target groups and categories for policy• What are the policy effects? Indented and unintended

17

18

Focus by policy makers on different on phases

Often used policy scheme to target extremism

19

(Islamic) Community

(at risk of becoming

risky?)

Radicalisation process (risky

group)

Prevention

Prevention/Pre-em

ptive

Intervention/pre-emption

PreventionSocial

projects

Violent extremists

Home grown phenomenon

20

Practices of preventive policies. Heath-Kelly:

• Local authorities [in UK] have reached the bizarre conclusion, given the discourses of radicalisation and security risk, that terrorism can and should be prevented through funding young Muslims to play cricket and football [similar NL]

• Policy deploys numerous practices to govern the conduct of subjects that it understands as ‘risky’, but also those it considers ‘at risk of becoming risky’ using knowledge about radicalisation to perform counter-terrorism

• From radicalisation as a process to extremism as a label

21

Policies of engagement• Communities are thus formulated in Europe as the

battlegrounds for policy programmes to reject the ideology of violent extremism, isolate potential extremists, support to vulnerable individuals or moderate entire communities

• Focus on approaches of engagement with local Islamic communities (e.g. local organisations)

• Intertwinement with integration issues (pluralism vs monoculturalism

• To what extent do these policies of engagement lead to suspect communities?

22

Amsterdam approach as an example

• Focus on Moroccan community• Focus on social mechanisms (isolation, disrimination,

polarisation, etc.)• Focus breeding grounds• Focus on phases• Preventive community approach by hundreds of social

projects• Suspect community?

23

Dilemma's of engagement1. Defining the enemy2. Representation3. Modus operandi

Dilemma of defining the enemy•Are non-violent Islamic extremist part of the problem and who is an extremist?• Fundamentalist or extremist groups are difficult to

identify• Fundamentalist or extremist groups can be important

partner (engagement)• How is the enemy definined? (Fudamentalist) Islamic

groups/norms and values (more and more the implicit or explicit message by authorities)

24

Dilemma of representation• Who represents the community and with whom do you

want to collaborate as authority?

- Amsterdam: individual key figures

- Berlijn: Islam Forum

- Londen (Tower Hamlets): Fundamentalist groups (non-

violent and not extremists)

- Parijs: no engagement and no representation (segregation and

isolation)

25

Dilemma of Modus operandi• Provide platform to extremist groups?

- Do extremist groups participate in policy programmes?

(London: Tower Hamlets)

- Discussing sensitive issues with all those involved (debates)

- Targeting isolation

- Role (local) media

- Defending democracy against extremism (militant

democracy) tolerant for the intolerant?

26

27

Conclusion: What is the actual problem?

• Generation Jihad and the failure of Multiculturalism

• How do authorities understand extremism?

• Which policy models are available for prevention?

• Defining radicalisation as a process often leads to labeling Muslims as extremists (suspect community)

• What are the effects of policies?https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zCDdK-IPz98#t=2812