Governing through Prevent? Regulation and Contested Practice in State–Muslim Engagement

Abstract

In this article, we consider the implications of the ‘Prevent’ strand of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy for the UK state’s engagement with Muslims. We argue that the logics of Prevent have been highly problematic for state–Muslim engagement. Nevertheless, we suggest that the characterisation of state approaches to engaging Muslims as a form of discipline is incomplete without an analysis of: first, differences in practices, habits and perspectives across governance domains; second, variations in approach and implementation between levels of governance; and third, the agency of Muslims who engage with the state. Through this approach we show how attention to the situated practices of governance reveals the contested nature of governing through Prevent.

Youth, terrorism and education: Britain’s Prevent programme

“…Such a frank state focus on British Muslims per se and on leadership and religious interpretation within Muslim communities prompted the allegation that Muslims had replaced the Irish as Britain's 'suspect community' within (Hickman et al, 2010).This explicit state concern with an essentialised Muslim community was also portrayed as part of a wider moral panic about the new 'folk devils', Muslim young men (Alexander, 2004), and as part of racism's wider shift to concerns with culture, rather than colour (Hall, 2000). This Prevent engagement did involve very significant funding for generic community development activity within Muslim communities, and some benefits for Muslim civil society and participation in governance have been identified (O'Toole et al, 2015). However, this support came from an explicitly anti-terrorism programme.…”

Changing experiences of responsibilisation and contestation within counter-terrorism policies: the British Prevent experience

“…Similarly, it is far from clear that the DCLG were ever happy with either Prevent per se or with its impacts on the community cohesion policies that they were committed to (O'Toole et al, 2013), whilst the Prevent Review itself was delayed by major splits within the Coalition government (and within the parties of that government; Thomas, 2012). This lack of 'state' consensus in itself raises questions about the wisdom of retaining Prevent.…”

“…(Kundnani, 2009;Bahadur Lamb, 2012). However, some outliers remained, with Leicester City Council insisting on Prevent being delivered via a community cohesion-focussed third sector organisation, rather than the local authority, an exceptional arrangment that remains in place to date (O'Toole et al, 2013).…”

Identifying potential terrorists: Visuality, security and the Channel project

“…Intimately related is a concern with how Muslim communities are policed within the context of the war on terror (Kundnani, 2007(Kundnani, , 2014; Thomas, 2012;Kapoor, 2013;Communities and Local Government Committee, 2010;O'Toole et al, 2016;Ragazzi, 2016). …”