For a word that 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 Hoffman's book Defining Terrorism, the author – a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council on 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 Mr Braddock and Mr Horgan, a terrorist ideology is a set of beliefs that convinces members and guides 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. At the Institute for Multicultural Development in the Netherlands, where youth programmes have been created to prevent radicalisation and recruitment into terrorist groups, participants are encouraged to express grievances with no restriction or fear of retribution. The programme focuses mainly on neighbourhoods in Dutch society with high levels of unemployment and a mixed population, which could be fertile breeding ground for recruitment.
Then there is opportunity. After detainees are released from prison, they might feel rejected by society. This can increase their sense of alienation and lead to them getting involved in terrorist activities again after their release as they search for identity and acceptance, and aim to boost their self-esteem and sense of belonging. Prison terms should be followed by reintegration programmes to ensure an effective transition back into civic life, with opportunities to obtain housing and a steady income.
Efforts to deradicalise and rehabilitate terrorists after detention should focus on using the very mechanisms used to recruit them in the first place. Targeting a person's state of mind and emotions to counter radicalisation as well as offering opportunities to reintegrate into society are effective tools. It is critical to assess each person individually, as well as examine their route into radicalisation. Taking those three main elements – ideology, psychology and opportunity – into consideration should help develop much better deradicalisation techniques but just as terrorist recruitment mechanisms evolve, we should be constantly alert to an ever-changing threat.
Maitha Sabah is a presenter for Sky News Arabia
