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

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.

Contesting Power: A Comparison of Muslim Civil Society Responses to Counter-Radicalization Policies in Canada and the U.K.

“…This is not only problematic from an equity and justice lens but also undermines the apparent trust-building goals of CR policies. In a recent article, Holdo (2021) suggests that state institutions face an apparent trade-off between "efficiency and democratic legitimacy" when designing CR policies (p. 477). From the perspective of state institutions, the urgency of the problem of 'radicalization' demands rapid deployment of policy solutions (based on prevailing security wisdom) at the expense of democratic values (p. 480).…”

“…CR policies are merely another state instrument reflecting discourses and practices that normalize the "casting out" of Muslims from the body politic (Razack, 2008). Holdo (2021) himself admits that the participation of Muslim CSOs in CR policymaking (in the Swedish context) is hampered by "features of 'radicalization' discourses and wider and more longstanding patterns of social and political exclusion" (p. 479). The analysis I have undertaken also lays the foundation for understanding how CR policies (and indeed, public policies generally) establish relations of power between state institutions and marginalized and racialized communities and their civil society representatives.…”