An inclusive and participatory approach to counter-radicalization? Examining the role of Muslim associations in the Swedish policy process

Markus Holdo

doi:10.1177/1468796820932282

Abstract

Policies on preventing radicalization and recruitment to violent Islamist organizations have been widely criticized for reinforcing negative stereotypes of Muslims as a group. Sweden has stood out by international comparison by announcing an approach built on inclusion and participation, especially with regard to Muslim civil society. But what does it mean to make a policy process inclusive and participatory? How can values of inclusion and participation be combined with efficient implementation and realization of policy goals, especially in a policy area where discourse and practice have tended to reinforce patterns of exclusion and discrimination? This article develops a framework that puts the roles of participants at the center: what expectations, boundaries and capacities come with an invitation to participate? Based on interviews with actors involved in the Swedish policy process, including Muslim civil society leaders, the study suggests that participation, in this case, meant primarily being present, thereby confirming commitment and stakeholder status and contributing legitimacy, and providing instrumental knowledge and communication networks. While Muslim representatives were often not expected to be more involved, some indicated that they themselves hesitated to go beyond these roles for several reasons. They expressed a concern that merely having opinions or critique could be interpreted as ‘radical’ and as not accepting the idea that Muslims as a group should have special responsibilities for preventing radicalism. One way of overcoming such obstacles is through subtle, indirect exercises of influence that allow policy-makers and administrators to anticipate the concerns and interests of affected groups without requiring their direct participation.

Highlights

The question of how state institutions should handle tensions between democratic values and efficient management has become increasingly central to scholarly discussions on strategies of preventing radicalization
Building on previous research on Sweden’s particular policy orientation with regard to multiculturalism and state-civil society cooperation, this paper suggests that Sweden is a critical case due to its comparably far-going rhetoric of inclusion and appreciation of the participation of minority groups in civil society
The study develops an analytical framework for assessing the roles that civil society may play in work of preventing radicalization. This framework suggests, may be included and participate as ‘objects’ that perform their roles by merely showing up, listening, and going home; they may participate as ‘instruments’, by carrying out tasks such as informing the public and bringing local knowledge to the awareness of state authorities; they may act as ‘actors’ whose participation add value by representing interests of citizens, including an interest in prevention; and they may become ‘agents’, who voice their own views about their roles, question pre-existing assumptions, and seek to influence, or co-produce, processes of decision-making according to their views, interests, and experiences. Applying this framework is applied to the context of Sweden’s policy of counter-radicalization, this study examines what spaces exist for citizens to play active roles in work to prevent radicalization? Interviews with administrators and civil society actors show that citizens were involved as objects, instruments, and sometimes actors, but not as agents

Summary

Introduction

The question of how state institutions should handle tensions between democratic values and efficient management has become increasingly central to scholarly discussions on strategies of preventing radicalization (see Esposito and Iner, 2018; Jacoby, 2016; Jenkins, 2016). Efficiently preventing recruitment to violent extremist organizations is part of a democratic state’s responsibility toward its citizens, a responsibility that requires methods that often cannot themselves be subject to democratic deliberation (Jacoby, 2016; Schwarzenbach, 2020). An important part of their argument is that participation may generate legitimacy and cooperation that, in turn, help improve administrative efficiency (Fung, 2009, 2015; Holdo, 2019; Torfing, 2019)

Objectives

Conclusion