ABSTRACT
Following this book’s detailed discussion of methodological, theoretical, and practical aspects regarding the various deradicalization and disengagement programs around the world, it becomes necessary to provide an overview of the current deradicalization landscape globally. Although a number of edited volumes exist which include thematic chapters on certain countries or programs (e.g., Bjørgo & Horgan, 2009; El-Said, 2015; El-Said & Harrigan, 2012; Gunaratna & Bin Ali, 2015; Rabasa, Pettyjohn, Ghez, & Boucek, 2010), these have been mostly focused on a specific area, certain programs, or ideologies (e.g., treating programs against Islamic extremism only). Recent years have seen attempts to create program databases and networks for mostly non-governmental programs (e.g., the Against Violent Extremism network, counterextremism.org, the European Union’s Radicalization Awareness Network) but so far no comprehensive comparative list of governmental and non-governmental programs across countries and ideologies exists. This chapter will provide the first at a glance overview of the CVE and deradicalization landscape across different continents and ideologies. Aiming to introduce the history, structure, main actors, and problems of these different CVE fields, a major outcome will be to see the global context and current situation of the practical deradicalization landscape. Of course, the selection of countries and actors is highly constrained by the given space and possible level of in-depth treatment in this monograph. Consequentially, this chapter does not aim to provide an exclusive list of programs, actors, and countries engaged in terrorist risk reduction or rehabilitation. This work can only be done by comprehensive and sophisticated online networks and databases, which allow for up-to-date information and much more detailed descriptions. However, these databases should be built on strong standards and quality criteria in order to differentiate the included programs according to type, potential effectiveness, and proven impact. One possible avenue for this collection would be to task an international body like the United Nations or the Global Counterterrorism Forum to agree on quality standards and design and to implement integrity evaluation procedures and collect program information for an open access and transparent database. Such collections must understandably reflect cultural and political differences between programs and countries involved,
which is possible through using differentiating typologies such as the one presented in Chapter 5. Looking at programs across national, cultural, and ideological contexts is absolutely necessary to effectively understand the nature and development of the deradicalization field around the world. The goal is not to assimilate all these programs into one category, but to establish standards in order to learn about what works in terrorist rehabilitation and what does not. As explained in Chapters 7 and 8 on the effects and moral problems of deradicalization programs, as well as Chapter 4 on the role of these programs in counterterrorism, this necessity goes beyond questions of good conduct or program integrity. Dysfunctional and methodically corrupted deradicalization programs run the risk of increasing the threat posed by violent extremism and terrorism around the world and not just in their own country. Hence, quality criteria are long overdue. Another problematic aspect in the current deradicalization landscape is the strong focus on one extremist ideology, which is Islamic extremism. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States, the so-called global ‘War on Terror’ has not only pushed aside political attention on other forms of violent extremism, but also marginalized research on other forms of terrorism and programs countering, for example, extreme right-wing movements, ethno-separatist groups, and militant left-wing radical milieus. Nevertheless, in some countries extensive practical experience exists for working with those extremist groups and milieus, which provides valuable insights into practical and theoretical approaches to deradicalization. In addition, many programs singling out Islamic extremism have been publically criticized for ‘criminalizing’ and ‘branding’ Muslims as extremists or as a group more vulnerable to terrorism than others (e.g., in the United Kingdom, see Qureshi, 2015; Verkeik, 2015). This strong focus on a single extremist ideology also creates the risk of developing biased methods and theories that reflect too much on specific aspects of certain groups or milieus and not on the psychological mechanisms behind violent radicalization and deradicalization. Although the individual case management needs to focus on the participants’ ideological and organizational background, the program as such, as well as national or international counter-radicalization strategies, need to be much more balanced in order to avoid being seen as one-sided. Without establishing a comprehensive overview on different deradicalization program types and methods, as well as their political and cultural context, it will remain impossible to identify those effects and activities that can be transferred from one country and extremist ideology to another and thus to identify the best practices (Horgan & Altier, 2012). However, it must be recognized that due to the lack of transparency, evaluative studies, and access to information, this collection and the accounts of each presented actor mainly rely on the programs’ statements, press reports, and-at least partially-interviews with program staff conducted by the author. Consequentially, the presented descriptive accounts should not be seen as proven or
validated accounts, but rather as introductory overview. In addition, it is not possible to describe the specific level of threat and risk posed by the various extremist and terrorist groups operating in the countries treated or to discuss the various states of violent radicalization processes.
