Page 58 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 58
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
their subjectivity into action. Non-violent conflictuality including dem-
ocratic negotiations and dialogues is the best answer to violence and
“radicalisation”.
Are the phenomena of radicalisation, right-wing populism and
political extremism poised to ultimately dominate our future?
Is there a way of ‘exiting violence’ (to borrow the term from the
‘Violence and Exiting Violence Platform’ that you chair)?
You could add international criminality, school shooting, extreme na-
tionalisms, etc.! One should not be too optimistic! Sometimes, one form
of violence disappears, but another appears. For instance in Mexico, there
is almost no more political violence, but there is a lot of criminal violence!
There are no total solutions, but real possibilities to always try and im-
plement preventing, reducing and eventually exiting violence. This means
for instance being able to help traumatised people to recover, justice and
peace to be articulated and not opposed, law, democracy and the state to
replace chaos and civil war, etc. We are living in very dangerous times, and
it is difficult not to be pessimistic.
Several scholars argue that one of the main limitations of existing
approaches to the problem of radicalisation lies in its reliance on
the ‘security’ paradigm, which leaves unanswered several key is-
sues associated with the tackling of radicalisation and violent ex-
tremism. What would be the most pressing challenges to the ‘se-
curity paradigm’?
Radicalisation is a process, and in order to understand this process, we
must first of all take into account the great diversities, on the one hand of
those that are “radicalised” and on the other hand, of not only the nation-
al, but also international and local situations in which radicalisation has
been possible. The “security” paradigm intervenes mainly at the national
level, and deals with limited dimensions, most of them in the very short
term. It doesn’t take into consideration the long-term issues, for instance
education, and it has nothing to do with the economic, political, cultur-
al and social sources of radicalisation, such as racism, social inequalities.
It may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and exert devastating perverse
effects, for instance by stigmatizing some people that have at the begin-
ning nothing to do with terrorism and violence. Security is necessary, but
should appear as just one aspect of public policies. And security measures
shouldn’t be voted in order to face terrorism, and be used for other goals.
56
their subjectivity into action. Non-violent conflictuality including dem-
ocratic negotiations and dialogues is the best answer to violence and
“radicalisation”.
Are the phenomena of radicalisation, right-wing populism and
political extremism poised to ultimately dominate our future?
Is there a way of ‘exiting violence’ (to borrow the term from the
‘Violence and Exiting Violence Platform’ that you chair)?
You could add international criminality, school shooting, extreme na-
tionalisms, etc.! One should not be too optimistic! Sometimes, one form
of violence disappears, but another appears. For instance in Mexico, there
is almost no more political violence, but there is a lot of criminal violence!
There are no total solutions, but real possibilities to always try and im-
plement preventing, reducing and eventually exiting violence. This means
for instance being able to help traumatised people to recover, justice and
peace to be articulated and not opposed, law, democracy and the state to
replace chaos and civil war, etc. We are living in very dangerous times, and
it is difficult not to be pessimistic.
Several scholars argue that one of the main limitations of existing
approaches to the problem of radicalisation lies in its reliance on
the ‘security’ paradigm, which leaves unanswered several key is-
sues associated with the tackling of radicalisation and violent ex-
tremism. What would be the most pressing challenges to the ‘se-
curity paradigm’?
Radicalisation is a process, and in order to understand this process, we
must first of all take into account the great diversities, on the one hand of
those that are “radicalised” and on the other hand, of not only the nation-
al, but also international and local situations in which radicalisation has
been possible. The “security” paradigm intervenes mainly at the national
level, and deals with limited dimensions, most of them in the very short
term. It doesn’t take into consideration the long-term issues, for instance
education, and it has nothing to do with the economic, political, cultur-
al and social sources of radicalisation, such as racism, social inequalities.
It may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and exert devastating perverse
effects, for instance by stigmatizing some people that have at the begin-
ning nothing to do with terrorism and violence. Security is necessary, but
should appear as just one aspect of public policies. And security measures
shouldn’t be voted in order to face terrorism, and be used for other goals.
56
