Material grievances make some communities more receptive to violent extremism
Literature published since 9/11 has improved our understanding of radicalisation processes and how groups that promote violent extremism operate. Despite its usefulness, this body of research has obstructed our awareness of the fact that most people are not radicalised, even in areas that provide fertile ground for radical ideas. These so-called enabling environments are places of poverty that lack social mobility, leading people to feel hopeless about their future.
Investigating the foundations of local community resilience
The EU-funded PREVEX project explored why some communities are more likely to experience violent extremism than others. To answer this core question, empirical investigations were carried out on the ground in the Western Balkans, the Middle East, North Africa and the Sahel. Findings from a broad range of studies revealed that even in the most enabling environments in the Middle East or the Sahel, the majority were not radicalised. These are detailed in multiple project outputs such as working papers, policy briefs, key stakeholder dialogues and podcasts. Both individuals and local communities were very resilient to violent extremist ideas and groups. “This has huge implications for how we think about and design preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) polices, as this high level of local community resilience often is overlooked and ignored both in national and international approaches to P/CVE,” explains project leader Morten Bøås, research professor at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
Boosting societal resilience
The PREVEX team conducted case studies on the occurrence and non-occurrence of violent extremism, gathered the results and made regional comparisons. The emphasis was on how to strengthen resilience by examining the non-occurrence of violent extremism in enabling environments. Strong focus on the non-occurrence of violent extremism was a key innovative aspect of the research. This is because most research on violent extremism deals with answering the question of why some people take up arms, instead of answering the reverse question of why people living in enabling environments often choose not to become involved in political violence. Therefore, P/CVE policies must incorporate knowledge of why individuals and groups resist such influence, even in enabling environments. Project partners found that local resistance to radicalisation originated from a long, continuous tradition of religious tolerance and social moderation supported by traditional or religious leaders who were themselves relatively moderate, appeared to be trustworthy and were relatively uncorrupted. However, these leaders must also deliver something that matters to the local community, and which strengthens the social cohesion in the community. If all these factors are present, it creates a ‘glue’ in society and constitutes a significant defence against radical ideas.
Rethinking P/CVE programming in the future
Equally important, they found that the journey into violent extremist insurgencies rarely starts with religious conviction. It is based on genuine material grievances about the lack of economic opportunities and education, as well as other types of local grievances. “We discovered that the journey into violent extremism does not start with ideology or religious beliefs, but rather with much more genuine material grievances,” concludes Bøås. “Prevention strategies need to focus on the basis of material-based grievances, and not on programmes concerned with religion or ideology.”
Keywords
PREVEX, violent extremism, enabling environment, resilience, P/CVE, radicalisation
