Implementing ‘Prevent’ in countering violent extremism in the UK: A left-realist critique

Abstract

This paper attempts to situate the UK 'Prevent' policy debate in the wider framework of the global Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) paradigm that emerged in late 2015. By omitting a nuanced approach to the social, cultural, economic and political characteristics of the radicalised, there is a tendency to introduce blanket measures that inadvertently and indirectly lead to harm. Moreover, although 'Prevent' has been the outward-facing component of the UK government's counter-extremism strategy since 2006, it conflates legitimate political resistance among young British Muslims as indications of violent extremism, providing credence to the argument that 'Prevent' is a form of social control, ultimately mollifying resistance by re-affirming the status quo on domestic and foreign policy. In this vicious circle, 'Prevent' can unintentionally add to structural and cultural Islamophobia, which are amplifiers of both Islamist as well as far right radicalisation. 'Safeguarding' vulnerable young people is imperative in this social policy domain but the language of inclusion is absent.

The scope and limits of combatting violent extremism in the United Kingdom

“…While Prevent has been the outward-facing component of the UK government's counter-extremism strategy since 2006, it conflates legitimate political resistance among young British Muslims as indications of violent extremism, providing credence to the argument that Prevent is a form of social control, ultimately mollify resistance by re-affirming the status quo on domestic and foreign policy. In this vicious circle, Prevent adds to structural and cultural Islamophobia, which are amplifiers of both Islamist as well as far right radicalisation (Abbas, 2019b). 'Safeguarding' vulnerable young people is imperative in this social policy, but the language of inclusion is absent.…”

“…Here, religion is a convenient umbrella -a suitable instrument of mobilisation. It is not the first point of departure in determining radicalisation or violent extremism, especially in the diasporic context, although, given the limited approach taken by the UK government, Muslim-owned and led deradicalisation initiatives that do not use the language of CVE but offer routes to self-empowerment provide greater assistance (Abbas, 2019b).…”

“…The present approach to Prevent/CVE, especially in the UK and in other parts of Western Europe, runs the risk of reproducing the very outcomes it wishes to counter. In understanding the drivers of VE among Muslim communities, and of former white working-class communities who turn to far right extremism, the symbiotic effects of culture and structure, in addition to the psychological dimensions, generate a systematic understanding of relations between the individual, communities and of wider society (Abbas, 2019b). Differences of opinion emerge between state actors and the wider communities, resulting in politicisation and polarisation, not always prevention or protection.…”

Background of Jihadist Radicalisation and Measures for Prevention and Intervention in Switzerland

“…Community policing strategies to prevent violent extremism aim at the establishment of trust between police and the communities through regular contact and exchange as well as integration (Spalek, Zahre McDonald and El Awa 2011). The sole focus on Muslim communities and security issues however bears the risk of reproducing negative stereotyping (Abbas 2018, Schenker et al 2016). There are community policing services operational within Switzerland solely in four cantons and four cities (Eser .…”

Preventing Extremism with Extremists: A Double-Edged Sword? An Analysis of the Impact of Using Former Extremists in Danish Schools

“…Few studies have analyzed the effectiveness of P/CVE initiatives empirically, and even fewer have applied research designs that allow for causal inference [17]. In short, we do not know whether these initiatives meet the stated goals or whether they have unintended negative consequences, as some scholars suggest P/CVE activities and policies do [18,19]. This is especially the case for initiatives that use former extremists to discredit extremist ideologies, an increasingly common practice (see, e.g., the Against Violent Extremism Network, [20]).…”