1 / 27

Managing Extremism Floris Vermeulen IMES/ Political Science Department /UvA

Managing Extremism Floris Vermeulen IMES/ Political Science Department /UvA. Introduction. Political Science perspective  preventive policies How can autorities understand the radicalisation process ? Possible link with debates about integration

adamdaniel
Download Presentation

Managing Extremism Floris Vermeulen IMES/ Political Science Department /UvA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing Extremism Floris Vermeulen IMES/Political Science Department/UvA

  2. Introduction • Political Science perspective preventivepolicies • How canautoritiesunderstand the radicalisationprocess? • Possible link withdebatesaboutintegration • Policy models for localauthorities • Policy dilemma’s • Radicalisation as a process  extremist as a label

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

  4. Generation Jihad • Young Muslims • Immigration background • Second or thirdgenerationimmigrants • Born and raised in Western countries (homegrown) • Fundamentalist (recent)  non-violent • (Non-)violent extremists • Large numbers, but stilltinyminority

  5. Political integration second generationMuslims in Europe • Low politicalparticipation • Feeling of detachment • Low representationnumbers (decreasing) • Mainstream politicalpartiesignorediversity • Small Islamicparties run bygeneration • Participation on the basis of Islamic identity is seen as highlyproblematic • Double implicitmessage: youneedto Participate/integrate, but only on ourliberal secularterms

  6. Connection withintegrationdebate • Failure of Multiculturalism? • Whobelongsto the nation? Ethnicunderstanding of the nation Civicunderstanding Monoculturalintegrationpolicies Multiculturalgroup-basedpolicies (pluralism) • Excludingthosewho are different (in terms of norms and values) • How toaccommodateminorities?

  7. Citizenshipmodels Koopmans et al. (2005)

  8. Outcome Integration debates in Europe Citizenshippolicies perhaps more civic but recently more restrictiveagainstMuslims CulturalPluralism lessgroup-based (integration) State engagement  problematicespeciallywithreligiousgroups Definition and understanding of the problem diversity, Islam, religion, non-Western norms/values are seen as causes of socialproblems

  9. Effects and questions of changingdebate • 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?

  10. Preventivelocalpoliciesagainstextremism • How topreventpeople in yourcity, district or neighbourhoodfrombecoming a violent extremist? • Earlyinterventions in the radicalisationprocess (or pre-emption, notidentifyingactual extremists) • Identifyingbreedinggroundand explanatory factors for extremism • Intervention: target breedinggrounds

  11. Main factors (breedinggrounds) extremism Social – Immigration, lack of integration, polarisation, segregation, isolation, discrimination Religious/cultural– IncompatiblityIslamicreligiousnorms and values Western values Social-economic– poverty, lack of integration, discrimination Political – International politicaldevelopments, Situation in Middle-East Struggletointegrate 2nd generationmarginalisedIslamic immigrant communitiesinto Western liberal society/city

  12. BUT, what is a radicalisationprocess? And do we knowhowtointervene? • Complex processwithmany factors (micro, meso, macro) and rare phenomenon • Academicdebatesnotresolved: f.i. relationshipbetweennon-violent and violent extremism? Does the radicalisationprocessactuallyexists or is itinvokedby policy makers? • Studyingradicalisation • DefiningExtremism

  13. Difficulties of studyingradicalisation Research 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)

  14. Difficulty of definingextremism • Extremism 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 manytensionshere, f.i. tensionsrelatedtoreligiousdiversityfreedom of religion and/or equal treatment. And how does thisrelateto the definition of extremism (are orthodox beliefs extreme?)

  15. Homegrownterrorism: debatesaboutimmigration, democracyandbelonging • 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

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

  17. Focus by policy makers on different on phases

  18. Radicalisation process (risky group) Often used policy scheme to target extremism Home grownphenomenon Prevention Social projects (Islamic) Community (at risk of becomingrisky?) Violent extremists Intervention/pre-emption Prevention/Pre-emptive Prevention

  19. Practices of preventivepolicies. Heath-Kelly: • Localauthorities [in UK] have reached the bizarre conclusion, given the discourses of radicalisation and security risk, thatterrorismcan and shouldbepreventedthroughfundingyoungMuslimstoplay cricket and football [similar NL] • Policy deploysnumerouspracticestogovern the conduct of subjects thatitunderstands as ‘risky’, but alsothoseitconsiders ‘at risk of becomingrisky’ usingknowledgeaboutradicalisationtoperform counter-terrorism • Fromradicalisation as a processtoextremism as a label

  20. 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?

  21. Amsterdam approach as anexample • 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?

  22. Dilemma's of engagement • Defining the enemy • Representation • Modus operandi

  23. Dilemma of defining the enemy • Are non-violent Islamic extremist part of the problem and who is an extremist? • Fundamentalist or extremist groups are difficulttoidentify • Fundamentalist or extremist groupscanbe important partner (engagement) • How is the enemydefinined? (Fudamentalist) Islamicgroups/norms and values (more and more the implicit or explicit messagebyauthorities)

  24. Dilemma of representation • Who represents the community and with whom do you want to collaborate as authority? - Amsterdam: individualkeyfigures - Berlijn: Islam Forum - Londen (TowerHamlets): Fundamentalist groups (non-violent and notextremists) - 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. Conclusion:What is the actualproblem? • 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

More Related