Rethinking countering violent extremism: implementing the role of civil society

Abstract

The current state of countering violent extremism (CVE) in Australia and other Western nations is characterised by definitional dilemmas around its relationship to the concepts and practice of counterterrorism (CT) and security. While attempts have been made to engage the civil society sector in CVE through programmes that provide funding for community groups, these attempts have largely been focused on empowering Muslim communities in Australia and the promotion of social harmony between these communities and the broader Australian community. Such programmes certainly have a place within all multicultural, multifaith societies, but the conflation of social harmony with security and protection from terrorism has had a counter effect resulting in the securitisation of diaspora Muslim communities. In order to efficiently target the root causes of violent extremism (VE) a reconceptualisation of the paradigm constituting CVE is required. Such a paradigm should be detached from the traditional focus on CT and apply a multidisciplinary and multi-layered approach that engages the voices of unorthodox stakeholders such as formers and victims alongside those of policy-makers and law enforcement. Using a theoretical framework based on “smart power”, this article argues that one way to achieve a more diffuse and broader approach to CVE is by incorporating grassroots citizen driven initiatives in the formulation of policy-driven CVE.

Keywords:

• civil society
• countering violent extremism
• smart power

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. This is very different to the current role that government ascribes to its citizens—whereby they are expected to stay alert and watch their neighbour and their suburbs for any suspicious behaviour.

2. In order for this to happen Wilson (2008) and Armitage and Nye (2007) suggest that the current institutional arrangements are a major stumbling block and governments’ must restructure in order to allow for soft power to be practiced on a coordinated front.

3. This refers to a multilateral approach—one where we bring together the voices of policy-makers, practitioners-in-the-field (including NGOs, formers, etc.), police, intelligence and defence.