Deradicalising extremists should involve the very mechanisms used to recruit them
Would-be terrorists are motivated by ideology, psychology and opportunity
Maitha Sabah
For a word which strikes such fear in the heart, no one seems quite able to define exactly what terrorism is, let alone how to deal with it. The word has its roots in the bloody reign of terror wielded by Maximilien Robespierre in late 18th century France and describes the fear imposed by his Jacobin regime. It was several more years before the word terrorism made its way into the Oxford English Dictionary as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims but it has had many different interpretations since then. Even the UN has not been able to come up with a satisfactory definition of terrorism, despite decades of trying to do so.
To better understand how to counter terrorism with deradicalisation and rehabilitation, therefore, one must understand the difference between other kinds of criminals and terrorists. A criminal uses fear on his or her victim to achieve an end goal; a terrorist aims to spread fear far beyond those affected as a means of propaganda, to engender support and to recruit new members. The repercussions of terrorism are often far greater, which means we cannot simply deal with terrorists as we do other criminals.
Criminology contains clear definitions of criminal acts, together with a suitable punishment for each. However, this is not the case when it comes to terrorism, which has evolved over time as terrorists develop new tactics. In Bruce Hoffmans book Defining Terrorism, the author a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council of Foreign Relations think tank clearly demonstrates the way terrorist strategies, motives, interest and methods change over time, making it difficult to narrow down a singular definition of terrorism or a sole route into it.
We can see three reasons why individuals become radicalised or involved in political violence: ideology, opportunity and psychology. Opportunity-related reasons are hard to separate from ideological and psychological ones. The ideological reasoning suggests terrorists are rational actors who engage in political violence for social reasons, a sense of belonging or money, among others. The psychological trigger implies individuals with personal or political grievances view violent groups as an opportunity to express their frustrations.
John Horgan, a psychologist and academic professor who has studied the psychology behind terrorism, states that most strategies for counterterrorism depend on assumptions related to terrorist profiling. Radicalisation can take the form of an ideology, or behaviour, or both. To develop better deradicalisation techniques, counterterrorism units should take those three principal causes for indoctrination and use them to change the narrative.
As far as ideology is concerned, deradicalisation efforts should provide a counter-narrative to reshape the ideology through education and vocational training. According to academics Kurt Braddock and John Horgan, a terrorist ideology is a set of beliefs that convince members and guide their actions. Education means, as Mr Horgan states, not simply an attempt to help an individual reinterpret hadith, for example. That is far less important than understanding the meaning of their involvement, the factors that mobilised them into action in the first place, and what led to their disengagement. On psychology, detainees might experience or witness violence in a different way from most people. But it is important to create a safe space for subjects to express their emotions.
The writer is a presenter for
Sky News Arabia
