Prevent is dead. What next? - The last government's ambitious but flawed anti-terror policies are on the way out. What should replace them?
The public announcement that Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation comes as welcome news for those of us who have witnessed the evolution and regression of the government's "Prevent" policy. Originally envisioned as a form of counter-radicalisation, it quickly became an unruly project that spread beyond security concerns. Eventually, it was as much about the government-inspired social engineering of integration as it was about stopping terrorist attacks.
The practical effect was that this policy, oddly, put responsibility for counter-terrorism in the hands of Communities and Local Government (CLG), and community cohesion responsibilities in the hands of the police – which is backwards, and doesn't play to the strengths of either of these key institutions. For Muslims the effect was even more problematic: they didn't know who to trust or what to believe. On the one hand police involvement in Prevent seemed to be community focused, on the other CLG seemed to be reporting activities to the security services.
However, the review of counter-terrorism policies is, like the budget and reform of education and healthcare, a defining moment for the coalition and for what it hopes to do over the course of the next parliament. For us, the review raises fundamental questions: is it about ideas? About ideologues? Or is it about retribution?
Retribution is the easiest of these to reject. While there will be many on the right who seek to use this review as an excuse to lord governmental power over groups and individuals who they wish to pay back after 13 years of Labour control, May and Baroness Neville-Jones are well aware that effective counter-terrorism must go beyond these kind of political games.
The question of whether this review (and others) is about ideas or ideologues is, however, much more complex, and is clearly where the political debate now lies. Prevent was at its most effective when it recognised that government could not engage in effective counter-terrorism if it did not engage all of society to prevent violence. At its inception, Prevent was ironically and inherently a policy of the Big Society. It was based on a belief that communities, not governments, are not only best at effecting solutions to problems, but that imposition of policies from above is expensive and artificial. Government could aid, train and help to shape processes of engagement, but the effective incarnation of Prevent was about communities taking responsibility for what they thought really mattered when confronting issues of recruitment to terrorism and wider engagement in the British political scene.
This makes for an uncomfortable dilemma for the new government and Home Office ministers. Is the review of counter-terrorism policies about identity issues and an imposition by government on Muslim communities of narrowly defined British shared values and beliefs? Or is it about the most revolutionary idea that David Cameron introduced during the election – the notion that government without the people cannot engender organic change for the better in British society?
Will the Home Office embrace the original spirit of the Prevent policy – that without the partnership of all sections of British Muslim communities in counter-terrorism, it becomes an exercise in imposing values and therefore loses effectiveness? Is the idea of the Big Society (which, as applied to counter-terrorism, should mean partnership with British Muslim communities) strong enough to overcome some Tories' qualms? Like everyone else, we will have to wait and see. There will be a great deal of anticipation among British Muslims as to whether the coalition government is about punishment or engagement, and what effects this review will actually have. ( guardian.co.uk )
The public announcement that Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation comes as welcome news for those of us who have witnessed the evolution and regression of the government's "Prevent" policy. Originally envisioned as a form of counter-radicalisation, it quickly became an unruly project that spread beyond security concerns. Eventually, it was as much about the government-inspired social engineering of integration as it was about stopping terrorist attacks.
The practical effect was that this policy, oddly, put responsibility for counter-terrorism in the hands of Communities and Local Government (CLG), and community cohesion responsibilities in the hands of the police – which is backwards, and doesn't play to the strengths of either of these key institutions. For Muslims the effect was even more problematic: they didn't know who to trust or what to believe. On the one hand police involvement in Prevent seemed to be community focused, on the other CLG seemed to be reporting activities to the security services.
However, the review of counter-terrorism policies is, like the budget and reform of education and healthcare, a defining moment for the coalition and for what it hopes to do over the course of the next parliament. For us, the review raises fundamental questions: is it about ideas? About ideologues? Or is it about retribution?
Retribution is the easiest of these to reject. While there will be many on the right who seek to use this review as an excuse to lord governmental power over groups and individuals who they wish to pay back after 13 years of Labour control, May and Baroness Neville-Jones are well aware that effective counter-terrorism must go beyond these kind of political games.
The question of whether this review (and others) is about ideas or ideologues is, however, much more complex, and is clearly where the political debate now lies. Prevent was at its most effective when it recognised that government could not engage in effective counter-terrorism if it did not engage all of society to prevent violence. At its inception, Prevent was ironically and inherently a policy of the Big Society. It was based on a belief that communities, not governments, are not only best at effecting solutions to problems, but that imposition of policies from above is expensive and artificial. Government could aid, train and help to shape processes of engagement, but the effective incarnation of Prevent was about communities taking responsibility for what they thought really mattered when confronting issues of recruitment to terrorism and wider engagement in the British political scene.
This makes for an uncomfortable dilemma for the new government and Home Office ministers. Is the review of counter-terrorism policies about identity issues and an imposition by government on Muslim communities of narrowly defined British shared values and beliefs? Or is it about the most revolutionary idea that David Cameron introduced during the election – the notion that government without the people cannot engender organic change for the better in British society?
Will the Home Office embrace the original spirit of the Prevent policy – that without the partnership of all sections of British Muslim communities in counter-terrorism, it becomes an exercise in imposing values and therefore loses effectiveness? Is the idea of the Big Society (which, as applied to counter-terrorism, should mean partnership with British Muslim communities) strong enough to overcome some Tories' qualms? Like everyone else, we will have to wait and see. There will be a great deal of anticipation among British Muslims as to whether the coalition government is about punishment or engagement, and what effects this review will actually have. ( guardian.co.uk )
No comments:
Post a Comment