Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A conceptual
Discussion and Literature Review
Executive summary
The popularity of the concept ‘radicalisation’ stands in no direct relationship to its actual explanatory
power regarding the root causes of terrorism.
Much of the literature on radicalisation focuses on Islamist extremism and jihadist terrorism.
‘Radicalisation’ is not a synonym for terrorism, thus this paper proposes a distinction between
radicalization and extremism.
Political violence should be situated in the broader spectrum of political action – persuasive politics,
pressure politics and violent politics – by those holding state power as well as non-state militant
actors. With this in mind it should also be recognised that radicalisation is not necessarily a one-sided
phenomenon, it is equally important to examine the role of state actors and their potential for
radicalisation
The current propensity to focus on the search for causes of radicalisation on ‘vulnerable’ young
people has produced inconclusive results. The paper pleads to look for roots of radicalisation beyond
this micro-level and include a focus on the meso-level – the radical milieu – and the macro-level – the
radicalisation of public opinion and party politics
When it comes to de-radicalisation/dis-engagement and counter-radicalisation the paper concludes
that it is difficult to identify what works and what does not work in general, or what is even
counter-productive. Local context matters very much and academics and policy makers alike are
increasingly recognising this fact.
Defining terrorism
> contested and politicised term
> one scientist concluded: ‘terrorism does not exist; or more precisely, it is not a useable concept in
social sciences.’
→ Such a purist position, however, is untenable, the more so because some of the terrorists
themselves use the label proudly
The fact that the UN has not yet managed to reach a universally acceptable legal definition of
terrorism is often cited as proof that it is impossible to find a good enough scientific definition.
→ this is more because of members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
European framework definition:
Criminal offences against persons and property that, given their nature or context, may seriously
damage a country or international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously
intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to
perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental
political, economic or social structure of a country or an international organisation
- this definition misses strategic use of raw emotions that terrorists seek to provoke
- also misses communication function
Discussion and Literature Review
Executive summary
The popularity of the concept ‘radicalisation’ stands in no direct relationship to its actual explanatory
power regarding the root causes of terrorism.
Much of the literature on radicalisation focuses on Islamist extremism and jihadist terrorism.
‘Radicalisation’ is not a synonym for terrorism, thus this paper proposes a distinction between
radicalization and extremism.
Political violence should be situated in the broader spectrum of political action – persuasive politics,
pressure politics and violent politics – by those holding state power as well as non-state militant
actors. With this in mind it should also be recognised that radicalisation is not necessarily a one-sided
phenomenon, it is equally important to examine the role of state actors and their potential for
radicalisation
The current propensity to focus on the search for causes of radicalisation on ‘vulnerable’ young
people has produced inconclusive results. The paper pleads to look for roots of radicalisation beyond
this micro-level and include a focus on the meso-level – the radical milieu – and the macro-level – the
radicalisation of public opinion and party politics
When it comes to de-radicalisation/dis-engagement and counter-radicalisation the paper concludes
that it is difficult to identify what works and what does not work in general, or what is even
counter-productive. Local context matters very much and academics and policy makers alike are
increasingly recognising this fact.
Defining terrorism
> contested and politicised term
> one scientist concluded: ‘terrorism does not exist; or more precisely, it is not a useable concept in
social sciences.’
→ Such a purist position, however, is untenable, the more so because some of the terrorists
themselves use the label proudly
The fact that the UN has not yet managed to reach a universally acceptable legal definition of
terrorism is often cited as proof that it is impossible to find a good enough scientific definition.
→ this is more because of members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
European framework definition:
Criminal offences against persons and property that, given their nature or context, may seriously
damage a country or international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously
intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to
perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental
political, economic or social structure of a country or an international organisation
- this definition misses strategic use of raw emotions that terrorists seek to provoke
- also misses communication function
