Preventing and countering violent extremism: a comparison between European countries

Introduction: from terrorism to prevention

As the recent attacks in France¹ and Belgium² have shown again, terrorism, particularly Islamic terrorism, is still a serious threat to European countries, despite the defeat of Islamic State in 2017. In general, the nature of such terrorism is very different from the traditional and canonical forms: instead of terrorist attacks being centrally planned by an organisation, the threat is now from single individuals who act independently on the basis of a loose connection to a terrorist network, with which they mainly come into contact through the internet, and sometimes respond to an online call for mobilisation, for example, in reaction to a conflict or war outside the West. These actors, commonly referred to as ‘lone wolf’ but better defined as ‘self-radicalised’ terrorists within a ‘Jihadist Atmosphere’ (Kepel, 2021), tend to be born in Europe (homegrown terrorism) and were radicalised in the medium term in a context of social as well as existential marginalisation. The result is a high rate of ideologisation and fanaticism, even if both of them are similar to a ‘thin centered ideology’ rather than a macro and classically structured ideology (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2017; Schroeder, 2020. After all, it is important to underline that one of the main bases of global Jihadism has been the appeal to Jihad as an individual’s duty (Kepel, 2018), but with a low degree of religious preparation: the link with religious communities is weak. As Michel Wieviorka (2004) argues, self-radicalised individuals use violence and terrorism as a way of subjectivation in order to reaffirm and improve their own personality, frequently lived as meaningless. Nevertheless, every subjectivation process involves sociopolitical orientations as well: the tendency to reconstruct one’s own personality in terms of hyper-subjectivity is linked to widespread sentiments and values, typically for contemporary marginalised individuals and, particularly, for marginalised Islamic people. As Farhad Khosrokhavar (2017) argues, in this respect, such self-radicalised terrorists are not so different from ‘traditional’ terrorists organically part of an organisation. Concerning Islamic terrorists, he underlines three sociopolitical orientations that conduct themselves towards violent radicalisation: first, a sense of humiliation and victimisation. Such is the case for the young people in the impoverished communities, known as the banlieu in France, ghettos in Anglo-Saxon countries or periferie abbandonate in Italy. Whether they belong to the lower or lower-middle classes, they distance themselves from the system and the democratic political struggle that has reduced them to insignificance as well as marginalised them in political and social terms. Second, being part of a global and symbolic community under assault, namely, the Neo-Ummah, which has no equivalent in Muslim history. Therefore, the structural element that characterises self-radicalised individuals, differentiating them from other kinds of terrorists, is paradoxically the radicalisation of all these orientations: the more the atomisation grows, the more the sense of humiliation and victimisation increases in people who are without meaningful social and political interaction. That being said, the spread of the self-radicalised individual must not be confused with a disappearance of terrorist organisations or an active membership in some sort of terrorist group: on the contrary, these forms continue to exist but, compared to radical Islamism, they are now weaker due to the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate and also the Al-Qaida network (another important global terrorist group) which is in a phase of latency in Europe and across the West. Finally, the ecology of contemporary radicalisation shows the ambivalent relationship that different kinds of extremism and, in general, extremism as whole have with modernity: on the one side instrumental modernity – weapons, web, digitalisation and so forth – are fully accepted and utilised; on the other, fundamental values of the ‘modern constitution’ (Latour, 1991) – such as personal freedom, emancipation, cultural diversities – are taken in discussion.

Facing to this complex scenario - which we have defined ‘Syndemic Society’ elsewhere (Antonelli, 2022) - over the years social prevention and not only ‘repression’ of radicalisation and terrorism has increasingly become one of the most important political purposes of national states as well as in the European Union. In general, three levels of prevention are distinguished: primary or universal prevention focused on the population as a whole; secondary that targets individuals who are at risk of falling prey to violent radicalisation; and finally, tertiary prevention or indicated prevention that concerns itself mainly with rehabilitating radicalised individuals and building the resilience of those who have extricated themselves from the radicalisation process. Understanding as different countries in Europe mix these prevention strategies, building specific policies to prevent and counter violent extremism (P/CVE) as well as highlighting the main strengths and weaknesses of such policies, are some of the most important aims of the Horizon2020 project ‘PARTICIPATION. Analysing and Preventing Violent Extremism via Participation’³, the results of which are partially discussed in the paper of this themed section.

Four case-studies

The research focuses on the policies implemented, to date, by seven EU member states: France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Romania and Greece.

The heterogeneity of the cases examined allows us to have a rather complete picture at European level as the different policies of the countries involved in the study reflect their varying national specificities: history and characteristics of the terrorist phenomenon, constitutional norms, security architecture, bureaucratic cultures, operational procedures in the field and specific priorities.

The four research papers that make up this issue offer an in-depth, critical and multi-level analysis of policies in the field of P/CVE implemented in Europe over the last few years. The comparative methodological approach that characterises almost all of the essays has two main implications: on the one hand, it emphasises more powerfully the heterogeneity of the policies for preventing and combatting violent extremism (P/CVE) implemented to date in the various European countries, despite the EU's efforts to strengthen and standardise this type of strategy at EU level; on the other hand, it helps to focus attention on the main gaps to be filled in the development and implementation of these strategies.

The first essay Comparing Two Different Contexts and Approaches to P/CVE Policies: Italy and Netherlands focuses on the comparison of two significantly divergent P/CVE approaches: the Italian and Dutch cases. The different histories and experiences related to terrorism and radicalisation are traced in order to better contextualise and explain the different strategies developed in these two European countries. The Netherlands presents a holistic and integrated approach in which a national framework underlies a targeted multi-stakeholder approach to preventing and countering violent extremism. By contrast, Italy lacks a clear and structured national strategy in the prevention of radicalisation, but at a local level, institutional actors, organisations and civil society try to compensate for this absence through the realisation of projects aimed at the prevention of polarisation and radicalisation, especially in the school and educational context, as emerges from the examined case of the Lombardy region.

Analysis of the two case studies was based on both desk research and in-depth qualitative research. Interviews with the different stakeholders involved in prevention programmes and projects at local level, particularly in the municipalities of Milan (Italy) and Delft (The Netherlands), made it possible to assess these strategies and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. The Netherlands, to date, presents a ‘comprehensive approach’ in the fight against terrorism and the prevention of radicalisation characterised by robust and effective collaboration among the various stakeholders, both at national and local levels. The main weakness that emerged concerns the risk of stigmatisation that may result from the greater focus of such policies on one form of extremism, in this case Islamism.

As regards Italy, the lack of a comprehensive and well-structured strategy to tackle radicalisation derives mainly from two factors: the Italian legal framework has remained anchored to that built during the so-called ‘Years of Lead’ in response to internal terrorist and organised crime threats. Moreover, the absence of terrorist attacks within the country and the relatively low number of homegrown jihadist foreign fighters has not prompted the country to develop comprehensive strategies to prevent violent extremism. This limitation also adversely affects policies at local level where, although there are ‘happy islands’ of implementation of prevention projects that mainly involve young people and students, these efforts pay the price of having no guarantee of continuity nor sustainability over time.

The paper Multiculturality against Radicalisation in Belgium and Portugal is dedicated to the analysis and comparison of the P/CVE policies of Belgium and Portugal. These two cases, in some ways, mirror those of the research dedicated to Italy and the Netherlands. Also in this case, there is evidence of a clear discrepancy in the development of prevention strategies in the face of the terrorist threat that has affected Europe in recent years. Belgium had already developed a plan for the prevention of violent radicalisation since 2013, and thus before the terrorist attacks that hit the capital Brussels in 2016, despite the difficulties of implementation due to the country’s complex institutional architecture. By contrast, Portugal has merely adopted the various counter-terrorism measures developed within the EU but has not established a particular programme to prevent radicalisation.

The analysis of P/CVE policies at municipal level also confirms profound differences between the two cases: the case of the Belgian city of Aalst illustrates the crucial role cities play in a federal country such as Belgium. The management and implementation of prevention policies are facilitated by the authorities’ and local actors’ in-depth knowledge of the resident population’s needs and priorities and their ability to develop preventive work tailored to the neighbourhood, and is capable of enhancing horizontal governance between various stakeholders. The analysis of the case of the city of Lisbon in Portugal focuses instead on the evaluation of several scattered programmes that are oriented towards integration and multiculturality. In the absence of an actual programme to prevent radicalisation, both at national and local levels, the research focused on policies and initiatives aimed at the prevention of phenomena such as racism and xenophobia and looked at the development of social cohesion through the promotion of inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue.

As also highlighted by the stakeholders interviewed, in recent years, especially following the growth of the Muslim community within the city and the perception of an increase in polarisation and hatred of a xenophobic and racist nature in the public space and, in general, in Portuguese society, the need to fill the existing gap by elaborating a holistic, comprehensive and integrated approach on P/CVE in the country has become even more urgent.

The paper No National Plans. Tackling Radicalisation and Discrimination with the effort of Civil Society in Greece and Romania proposes an analysis of two case studies of national policies and strategies on the prevention and countering of violent extremism (P/CVE): Greece and Romania. The authors conducted desk research regarding the existing situation of violent extremism, and radicalisation in Greece and Romania, along with identifying current policies, strategies and initiatives with regards to P/CVE in both countries. The results of this initial research, at a second stage, were further elaborated via fieldwork in specific regions in the two countries. The paper highlights the fact that, in both countries, the development of local, regional, and national P/CVE programs has been entrusted entirely to civil society. To explore the topic further, the paper proposes an in-depth analysis of two municipal case studies in Central Macedonia and Cluj-Napoca, in the Transylvanian region of Romania. Specifically, interviews and round table discussions with key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners were conducted to discuss current policies at subregional, regional, and municipal levels and to collect their views on the challenges faced. The results of the analysis showed that both countries are lagging behind in building effective P/CVE strategies. Furthermore, what clearly emerged is that Greece, despite having the institutional infrastructure (competent agencies and local actors), is essentially inactive, while Romania still struggles to recognise the potential threat represented by radicalisation and violent extremism in the country, as demonstrated by the lack of public information and constructive dialogue at government level on the topic. The authors point out that both countries have failed to be proactive in response to such violence and both systems operate primarily from a punitive approach aimed at penalising acts classified as harmful to human rights. In reality, it is increasingly clear that the most sustainable and effective way to fulfil this responsibility is to meaningfully involve local governments, which is observed in the paper.

Finally, P/CVE National Plans and Education as Strategy to Prevent Violent Extremism. The case of France provides an overview of French P/CVE policies. The analysis of this case study, like those contained in previous essays, also begins with a diagnosis of the country's history with respect to the different types of violent extremism and pays particular attention to the national P/CVE plans implemented and their evolution. These plans are analysed taking into consideration all three levels of intervention in P/CVE (primary, secondary and tertiary). An initial conclusion of the author is that the P/CVE plans developed in France appear to be well-structured, capable of acting on all three levels of P/CVE and are equipped with specific educational policies. Further considerations made by the author are, first of all, that P/CVE policies were developed to address, above all, Islamic violent radicalisation and jihadist terrorism, which represents the main violent extremist threat to France today. However, the author observes, more attention must also be paid to the other forms of violent extremism that are emerging in France. Secondly, over the years the French government has moved away from a strong security-oriented approach and favoured a new all-encompassing and holistic approach aimed at preventing radicalisation. For example, new measures have been adopted to address the socio-economic, cultural and psychological causes of radicalisation, and a wide variety of institutional and non-institutional partners have been involved at national, regional and local levels.

Some final remarks

The first reflection that emerges from reading this research is that, compared to studies carried out on the subject a few years ago (Maniscalco & Rosato, 2019), progress has certainly been made in improving policies to prevent violent extremism, especially in the attempt to overcome previous approaches to countering terrorism with a purely securitarian approach. In spite of this, the tendency to ‘follow’ events (Maniscalco & Rosato, 2019) continues to be a trait that unites the responses of the various European countries, which are struggling to put into practice the lessons learned from previous mistakes: it is no coincidence that the states that have elaborated more structured and multi-level plans and programmes are often those countries that have experienced the devastating effects of violent extremism, especially of the jihadist inspiration (see Belgium and France), while the countries that have remained immune up to now neglect and postpone their commitment to building effective prevention strategies, continuing to favour a punitive approach. Italy, Portugal, Romania and Greece, as evident from the in-depth analyses contained in the articles in this special issue, are illustrative examples of this substantial immobility with respect to the issues of radicalisation and violent extremism and their prevention.

While it is true that past events, institutional arrangements and contingent priorities shape the policies of individual countries; necessitating flexible approaches wisely tailored to different contexts, it is also true that a structured, comprehensive and multi-level prevention approach, particularly targeted at young people, is a crucially necessary investment in Europe's future that no state can afford to ignore any longer.

The tensions and upheavals that today’s societies are experiencing on a global level (think of the recent Covid-19 pandemic, the effects of climate change and the resurgence of violent conflicts in many areas of the world) are signs that cannot be underestimated. In fact, all the research presented here highlights the spread within European countries of extremism of various kinds and the increasing activation of a mechanism of ‘cumulative’ extremism or ‘radicalisation by reaction’, as well as the emergence of new forms of extremism and ‘hybridisation’ (Antonelli & Marinone, 2022). In addition, findings discussed in all papers of this themed section undeline that, after the 2001, the massive return of terrorism and violent radicalism in our societies have determined, among other things, an increasingly divide between political élites and experts engage to understand and to tickle violent radicalisation, homegrown terrorism and extremism, on the one hand, and civil society, usually prisoner of fear and sometimes seen as part of the problem rather than the solution, on the other. So, the mobilisation against the violent radicalisation has been based on a top-down approach and it has not been based on a wide public discussion. The society – and sometimes the scientific community itself – has suffered such a mobilisation and it has been rarely protagonist. Particularly the social subjects hardest hit to violent extremism, as both victims and possible target for extremism propaganda. The result is a deterioration of the quality of our democracy and our scientific analysis, often fall back on the point of view of the political élites and law enforcement agencies. Both have requested – and still require – to the scientific community to participate in the effort to prevent terrorism and violent extremism: however, this request has led a subaltern integration of the science in the mobilisation against the threats.

Even less striking and visible phenomena, such as the polarisation of public debate, are on the rise in our societies and should be the focus in the construction of effective prevention strategies in those countries that have not yet developed them and in the continuous improvement of existing ones. The motto ‘better safe than sorry’ still holds true, even more so when the security and stability of entire societies are at stake.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Francesco Antonelli

Francesco Antonelli is Professor of Sociology (Roma Tre University) and the Coordinator of the Horizon2020 Project 'PARTICIPATION. Analyzing and Preventing Extremism Via Participation' (Grant Agreement 962547). Among his recent book Technocratic Politics. Beyond Democratic Society? (London & New York, 2022).

Santina Musolino

Santina Musolino is a research fellow in Sociology at the Department of Political Sciences (Roam Tre University). His research topics include gender, political violence, violent extremism. Among his publications 'Soggettività femminili e violenza politica' (Mimesis 2017), 'Las políticas de la UE para la prevención del extremismo violento: ¿un nuevo paradigma de acción?'(CIDOB Revista 2021), 'Social Movements and Social Disobedience During the COVID-19 Crisis: The Case of the Italian University' (Springer 2023).

Valeria Rosato

Valeria Rosato is a research fellow of sociology, writes on issues related to security, terrorism and peacekeeping processes. Among her recent publications are Preventing radicalisation and terrorism in Europe: A comparative analysis of policies (Cambridge 2019) and Sociological considerations on organized violence. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict between 'old' and 'new' wars (Journal of Political & Military Sociology, forthcoming).

Notes

1 On 13 October 2023, a mass stabbing occurred at the Gambetta-Carnot secondary school in Arras, Pas-de-Calais, Hauts-de-France, France. One person was killed and three others were seriously wounded. The attack was believed to be connected to rumours that Hamas had called for a Global Day of Terrorism on the 13th. The suspect was previously known to the French security services for his involvement in radical Islamism.

2 Two Swedish nationals were shot dead in Brussels on 16 October 2023 in a terrorist attack linked to the conflict in Middle East.

3 PARTICIPATION was a Horizon 2020 funded project aimed at preventing extremism, radicalisation and polarisation that can lead to violence through more effective social and educational policies and interventions. The project has offered a holistic approach towards extremism and radicalisation in order to capture and explore contemporary experiences of extremism and radicalisation and proposes concrete actions, policies, and digital tools that will empower policy actors and practitioners to respond to a changing reality. The project’s main topics were also violence, conflict and conflict resolution, transformation of societies, democratisation, and social movements. Francesco Antonelli, University of Roma Tre, was the coordinator of PARTICIPATION that involved fifteen partners from all over Europe. This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 962547. It started in November 2020 and concluded in November 2023. More information on the PARTICIPATION project is available at: https://participation-in.eu.