The Role of Civil Society in Political Repression: The UK Prevent Counter-Terrorism Programme

Narzanin Massoumi

doi:10.1177/0038038521996977

Abstract

Research on social movements shows a bias towards movements that oppose the status quo. Consequently, state–movement relations are primarily characterised as antagonistic. Where cooperative relationships are considered, the focus is on co-option and institutionalisation of movements. By contrast, this article focuses on social movements that support the status quo and how in their collaborations with governmental actors, they act as para-statal agencies. Drawing on findings from a multi-site ethnography examining the implementation of the UK Prevent counter-terrorism programme, I show how neoconservative think tanks and counter-extremism civil society organisations help to enact and extend Prevent as a distinct form of political repression. As such, this article gives close attention to the otherwise neglected role that non-state actors play in non-violent political repression. My argument builds on and extends emerging work analysing social movement activity beyond the prism of the ‘challengers versus authorities’ paradigm.

Highlights

Social movement scholars have focused on antagonistic relationships between social movements and the state (Snow, 2004; Tarrow, 1998; Tilly, 1978)
I have argued above that the UK Prevent programme is a form of political repression enacted by both governmental and non-governmental actors
Rejecting the challenger/ authority model of confrontational state–movement relations, I have instead shown that the Prevent programme is implemented by an enforcement network which sits within and around the state

Summary

Introduction

Social movement scholars have focused on antagonistic relationships between social movements and the state (Snow, 2004; Tarrow, 1998; Tilly, 1978). The dominant traditions of resource mobilisation (RMT) and political process theory (PPT) define social movements as ‘collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities’ (Tarrow, 1998: 4). Conventional view is that social movement actors exist outside of the state and mobilise extra-institutional resources due to their exclusion from institutionalised channels of power. This conception of state–movement relations leaves open two unanswered questions. The first is how do we understand the activism of those within institutionalised channels of power, utilising their positions to pursue a social movement cause? Moving beyond a ‘challenger versus authority’ conception of social movement activity, my analysis shows three ways in which political mobilisation is located within and around the state

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion