MANY societies affected by extremism mistakenly believe that countering and preventing extremism is the exclusive domain of government agencies.

This perception only provides more space for extremist groups to disseminate their divisive narratives, recruit manpower, increase sympathisers and generate finance. Therefore, to prevent extremism, understanding its signs and the process of radicalisation is equally critical for families and communities.

For instance, families and friends can flag behavioural changes in a person’s life, including in their ideology, social relations, and criminal activity. A radicalised person may increasingly use ideological language that discriminates against others. Because the individual may be identifying with an ideology that is different from prevalent norms, one may also observe isolation from society.

Violent extremism describes the acts of a person or group of persons who have decided that fear and violence are justified to achieve ideological or social change and are acting on this belief. Ideology-based VE is propelled by the misinterpretation of religion. The real motivation may be political, but it is justified using religious reasons. During the radicalisation process, a person may start using criminal tactics like vandalism, minor property damage, and trespassing, or protesting in a violent way to draw attention to their beliefs.

There are certain myths about radicalisation. For instance, there is the myth that anyone who experiences radical thoughts is a violent extremist. This is not always true. It is also a myth that an extremist must be associated with a group. There have been several instances where individuals have been self-radicalised without the support of any group. Another myth is that radicalisation is linked to religion. This, too, is not always true, as there are several extremist organisations that do not have a religious agenda, such as the Red Brigades in Italy.

There are certain myths about radicalisation.

Leaving an extremist group and rejoining mainstream society are both difficult tasks, but they can be made smoother with the support of both the community and government. During this process, individuals must go through a learning and de-learning process, particularly on how to cultivate positive relationships. Communities need to realise that it is in their collective interest to help people disengage from VE before they hurt others or themselves. This help may be financial, social, and/ or emotional.

Though early intervention is best, it requires an understanding of the reasons that make a person choose radicalisation. These reasons may include changes in living or employment status, mental health issues, health and social problems, dropping out of school, negative changes in human relationships, confrontations with family, discrimination and exposure to hateful attitudes, and sometimes overseas events that may have harmed their community.

A simple way for friends and family to deal with a person going through radicalisation is to maintain open communication with them. A positive relationship is the basis for effective intervention. It is better to listen and to understand the reasons behind an individual’s radicalisation, as this may enable the family and friends to be of help to them. For ideological responses, it is better to engage religious and political leaders for guidance.

Effective communication includes reinforcing positive community behaviour and responsibilities, encouraging inclusive language, and promoting peer-to-peer initiatives.

When discussing countering terr­orism and VE, it is important to avoid using words that stereotype or link terrorism with religion, ethnicity, or specific communities, either implicitly or explicitly. Language should be used to prevent emphasising differences and divisions, and instead, focus on common values and purposes. Certain words and phrases used by the global media often offend communities.

In developing societies, LEAs often use one-way communication to reflect what the government wants to do. Instead, the focus should be on positive messaging and highlighting what communities can do. Inviting input from communities can prove effective in this regard, as communication strategies should also address community concerns.

Communication should focus on the fact that violence is not a solution and has no place in society. It should use inclusive language that includes positive narratives. The narrative should be based on the principle that violence is not the only choice and that there are other ways to express oneself. Deradicalisation and disengagement require equal attention from communities and governments. Let’s stand together against the virus of extremism.

The writer is the author of Pakistan: In Between Extremism and Peace.

X: @alibabakhel

Published in Dawn, July 27th, 2024