Prevent: still a work in progress

We must persevere with community approaches to tackling violent extremism, however long it takes

By Ewan King and Christopher Reed

The attempted bombing of a transatlantic flight on Christmas Day has led to a renewed round of soul searching about the Government’s attempts to tackle violent extremism.  Reports that the would-be bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, may have been radicalised in a UK university only heightens our need to find answers quickly.

Besides more traditional counter-terrorist activities associated with our security services, the main lever the Government has for stopping these kinds of offences is ‘Prevent’ – the strategy which aims to stop people becoming or supporting violent extremists.

The Prevent strategy has been subject to a huge amount of criticism, much of which, in our view, is justified. Attacked from all sides of the political spectrum and by Muslim communities in particular, it is rare to see a policy generate quite so much controversy.

However, both the threat and the requirement to implement the policy remain, and those involved in delivering Prevent need to be offered more to work with than a list of criticisms. They need practical suggestions about what will make the policy work more effectively in local communities.

The original intention was to create a “community-led approach to tackling violent extremism”.  For many, this goal has not been achieved and the policy has often received criticism for being centrally imposed. However, Muslim communities can and should have an active role in shaping how Prevent is delivered.  Muslim communities - particularly those unused to political involvement - are too often found sitting outside Prevent partnerships. They need to be at the heart of decision-making, helping local authorities to understand local risks, identify clear priorities and commission projects to meet local challenges.

As one Muslim community activist told us, “Prevent will only work if it is tackling the problem as we see it – that is, it should be about protecting our families and communities”. However, unless local authorities have good community engagement and governance structures, Muslim communities will always feel that the policy is being directed from behind closed doors. Involving local people in decision-making is the bread and butter of most local authorities, but in relation to Prevent, these community engagement skills have rarely been harnessed adequately.

This need not be the case. In Bristol, for example, the council ran a series of events for Muslim communities to take an active role in making decisions about Prevent, which led to on-going community involvement. Similarly, Peterborough has established an Imams Council and both women’s and youth forums to take an active role in shaping the local Prevent strategy.

One of the most damaging criticisms of the strategy is that it provides a means of covert intelligence-gathering on Muslim communities, whatever their background or relationship to Prevent. The involvement of the police as a key delivery partner of Prevent has often strengthened this suspicion. The main thrust of the strategy is to engage Muslim communities positively so that they have the skills, support and knowledge to counter the problem of violent extremism. However, in too many local areas, a combination of poor communication, lack of clarity about information-sharing protocols and a general lack of transparency on the part of Prevent partners has led many to conclude that Prevent is simply another way to spy on Muslim communities. Local authorities need to re-enforce the message that the overriding purpose of Prevent is to work with communities to find shared solutions to the menace of violent extremism. They need also to be clear and open about the circumstances that can lead to information being shared – that is, on the rare occasion that someone is seen to be at risk of engaging in violent crime.

 Prevent is derided for being focused on a single, albeit diverse, community. This, it is argued, undermines community cohesion and the focus on “shared values”. Prevent is likely to retain its principal focus on Muslim communities – after all, the genesis and continued rationale for the strategy is the prevention of violent extremism inspired by a distorted perception of Islam. However, certain Prevent interventions, such as projects to enable young people to air their grievances or promote inter-faith relations, can adopt a whole community focus.

Far-right and Islamic inspired violent extremism share certain similarities – adherents of both claim that their communities are being portrayed negatively, and both perceive that they are the victims of discriminatory policies. Thus, Prevent can be used to support projects that seek to address the problems that are common to all forms of extremism, working with both white and Muslim communities. Leicester Council for example, is challenging far-right extremism as part of its efforts to engage all of its communities.

There is unlikely to be any real let-up in the criticisms directed at Prevent. Nor, however, is there likely to be any significant reduction in the threat from violent extremists. The Prevent policy - as the Government itself has admitted - is likely to be revised in the future and, hopefully, some of its inherent weaknesses resolved. In the meantime, it is important for those charged with delivering Prevent to learn from good practice where it does exist, and make sure good community engagement is embedded at the heart of local delivery. Otherwise the precious time, money and commitment invested in Prevent thus far will be lost.

Ewan King is the Director of Analytical Studies at the Office for Public Management, where Christopher Reed is a Researcher. OPM has worked extensively on the Prevent agenda and currently supports the Young Muslims Advisory Group: www.ymag.opm.co.uk

To find out more about this article, visit: www.opm.co.uk