Does Radicalization equal to terrorism or extremism?
Source: Dieter Reinisch.
Welcome to the first blog of the project Post-Conflict Identities and Peace-making. This project aims to investigate the role that post-conflict identities play in the peace-making process. The modern part of the project, written by me, explores links between peace-making processes and radicalisation: in particular, I investigate how failed peace processes can become problematic. For this opening blog, I will clarify some important differences between ‘radicalisation’, asking: How does ‘radicalisation’ relate to ‘terrorism’ or ‘extremism’?
The term ‘radicalisation’ has been defined as someone is being encouraged to develop extreme views or beliefs in support of terrorist groups and activities’ . This definition could be seen as a vague and contradictory, as it does not provide a definition for the term itself, but only connects it with two other two terms. This definition is problematic, as it can cause readers to equate radicalisation with terrorism and extremism. However, if that were valid, why would political scientists use a distinct term? Moreover, terrorism and extremism are generally considered inherently negative, and in many countries constitute crimes. Is radicalisation, then, also negative and violent, and in some cases can we accuse radicalised people of being potential criminals? The remainder of this blog tries to separate the aforementioned terms and explain each of them.
Some scholars attempt to define radicalisation in terms of a certain religion. Scholars such as Mullins (2012)1. have argued that radicalisation is the process of coming to adopt militant Islamist ideologies. Similarily, Goerziq and Al-Hashimi (2015)2 defined radicalisation as ‘the process of progressively adopting more radical beliefs and ideas of Islam’. Both approaches attempts to connected Islam. However, the definition of radicalisation should not be categozied with a certain religion or political ideologies. This point of view has been supported by a research report released by the International Centre for Counter- Terrorism (ICCT), explaining the term. Historically, the term ‘radical’ has referred to the political positions of support for democracy and opposition to monarchy. In contrast, the term today tends to point in the opposite direction, referring to the embrace of an anti-liberal, anti-democratic agenda. The meaning of ‘radicalisation’ has changed historically according to context; it has no direct relationship with Islam or any other religion. The attempts of disconnecting Islamism with radicalisation can avoid the Islamophobia in the peace-making process.
In terms of the relationship between radicalisation and violence, scholars3 have argued that ‘not all radicalisation is necessarily negative, nor does radicalisation necessarily lead to violence’, arguing that the relationship between violence and radicalisation is not as simple as stated in the UK government website. Other states, like Canada have clarified that radicalisation ‘is by no means a problem in itself’, and that radical thinking only becomes a threat to national security ‘when Canadian citizens, residents or groups promote or engage in violence as a means of furthering their radical political, ideological or religious views’. Compared with the British approach, the Canadian government better discusses the conditions under which radicalisation is problematic for national security.
All in all, the concept of radicalisation is very contested by scholars and international organizations. There are several point of consensus. Firstly, we could say that radicalisation does not have any direct relationship with any particular political ideology or religious identity. Secondly, radicalisation is not a static position but a process. Thirdly, it needs to be clarified that radicalisation does not equate to extremism, violent extremism, terrorism or any other approaches that threaten national security strategies, although in some cases radicalised people can become extremists, violent extremists or terrorists. Fourthly, most importantly, the term ‘radical’ itself merely indicates an opposition to the status quo, which should not be attributed any inherent positive or negative values. This should not be prevented by the authorities.
Having clarified the terms ‘radical’ and ‘radicalisation’, I will now analyse the concept of extremism in international relations. British authorities define extremism as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas’, which seems very similar to the aforementioned definitions of radicalisation. On the other hand, some scholars4 provide a more precise definition, as they suggest that extremism should be defined as ‘the belief that an in-group’s success or survival can never be separated from the need for hostile action against an out-group. Extremist ideology defines who is part of the in-group.’ Analyzing this definition, we can see that it contains three main points. The first is that extremism makes a clear distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Secondly, its attitude towards other political opinions, or discourses which which the extremists disagree, includes hostility. Thirdly, the concept of extremism itself is not directly linked to the use of violence, so we can conclude that the British authorities have, again, excessively generalised the term. The term violent extremism should be regarded as the extremists who used violence in achieving their extremist objective.
The last concept to clarify, which is probably also the most widely used , is terrorism. The definition of terrorism is also highly contested. It has been defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as ‘violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations.’ The United Nations General Assembly defined terrorism as ‘acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.’ The European Union provides a simpler definition of terrorism: ‘criminal offences that may damage lives and property.’ Comparing these three definitions, a commonality may be seen in those of the UN and the FBI in that they focus primarily on the impact of terrorism at the state level, but ignore the impact of terrorism on civilians. The EU’s definition fails to make a distinction between normal criminals and terrorists. In the academia, terrorism has been defined as ‘a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties.’ By comparing with violent extremism, terrorism highlights the result it caused which always harms civilians and state.
In conclusion, this blog has focussed on distinguishing between different terms, and has addressed the question as to whether radicalisation equates to extremism. In many cases, for various reasons, governments and supranational organisations have tended to oversimplify the definitions of some terms, which not only causes difficulties in understanding but also creates confusion in distinguishing similar concepts. Some over-simplified definitions of radicalisation and extremism would stigmatise religious practices or particular political discourses. It should be noticed that radicalisation and extremism have no direct relationship with violence. By bringing the academic consensus into the discussion, this blog provides a more comprehensive and justifiable perspective on how these concepts should be understood and learnt. Briefly, radicalisation can, but does not necessarily, lead to non-violent extremism. In some cases, radicalised individuals can subscribe to extremism, which can, but does not necessarily, become violent extremism. The difference between violent extremism and terrorism is that terrorism produces a result which not only harms the government, but also harms individuals. This blog has continuously employed a human-centred approach, which focuses both on impact of post-conflict peacebuilding on humans, and on why humans became radicalised, extremists, violent extremists or even terrorists.
Bibliography
1. Mullins, Sam. “Iraq versus lack of integration: understanding the motivations of contemporary Islamist terrorists in Western countries.” Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 4, no. 2 (2012): 110-133.
2. Goerzig, Carolin, and Khaled Al-Hashimi. Radicalization in Western Europe: Integration, public discourse, and loss of identity among Muslim communities. Routledge, 2014.
3. Alonso, Rogelio, Tore Bjorgo, Donatella Della Porta, Rik Coolsaet, Farhad Khosrokhavar, R. Lohker, Magnus Ranstorp et al. “Radicalisation processes leading to acts of terrorism. A concise report prepared by the European Commission’s expert group on violent radicalisation.” (2008): 20.
4. Berger, John M. Extremism. MIT Press, 2018.