Forced democratisation and the paradox of muscular liberalism
22 September 2024
It is not just free speech that is under threat, but free thought
Democracy, proclaim its advocates, is built on the foundation of freedom — freedom of speech, belief, and association. It thrives, they say, on diversity of thought, permitting a “marketplace of ideas” to flourish where conflicting perspectives can coexist and battle for public support. Yet, in recent decades, some Western democracies have pursued policies that appear to contradict these principles, seeking to suppress or re-engineer certain viewpoints through overt and covert means. This process, which I refer to as forced democratisation, involves using state power not merely to protect society from genuine threats but also to impose a certain set of values, beliefs, and ideologies. The paradox is evident: how can democracies claim to uphold freedom and pluralism while forcefully moulding the minds of their citizens?
David Cameron and muscular liberalism
Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron has been one of the most vocal cheerleaders of forced democratisation. In a speech at the Munich Security Conference on 5 February 2011, Cameron called for a shift from “passive tolerance” to a more aggressive “muscular liberalism” in response to the growing threat of “extremist ideologies.” Rather than merely tolerating differing views, Cameron argued that Western governments must actively promote certain values, including individual liberty, equality, and democracy. He urged Western societies to “confront” extremist ideologies “in all their forms,” advocating for a vision of society where belonging means subscribing to a specific set of “national values” — which are to be determined, of course, by politicians and policy wonks.
At first glance, the call for muscular liberalism might seem reasonable — who could argue against the promotion of democracy and human rights? However, beneath this rhetoric lies a more troubling reality. By advocating for a state-driven campaign to promote and enforce specific values, Cameron’s vision runs the risk of curbing the very freedom that liberal democracy purports to protect. In this model, the state becomes the arbiter of acceptable thought, blurring the line between safeguarding society and suppressing dissent.
The Prevent Program and Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)
Cameron’s ideas manifested in policies like the Prevent program in the UK, which aims to preemptively address the roots of radicalization. Prevent is a key pillar of the UK’s broader Counter-Terrorism Strategy and seeks to identify individuals deemed susceptible to radicalisation and intervene before they turn to violence. The program is part of a wider trend across Western democracies, such as the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiatives in the US and Australia, which share similar goals.
On paper, these programs are designed to protect citizens from genuine threats, especially terrorism. However, the execution of these policies raises troubling questions about the erosion of free thought. Critics argue that such programs disproportionately target certain religious or ideological groups, most notably Muslim communities, creating a culture of suspicion and fear. By equating certain viewpoints with extremism, governments are effectively narrowing the range of acceptable thought, leading to a form of ideological policing and legitimising the concept of pre-crime. This resembles the worst excesses of authoritarian regimes that have sought to stifle dissent by labelling any opinions that do not conform with official orthodoxy as heretical, dangerous, and downright criminal.
Denazification and thought reform
The concept of forced democratisation is not new. Historical parallels can be drawn to the denazification programs in postwar Germany and the “thought reform” campaigns in postwar Maoist China. After World War II, Allied forces implemented so-called denazification policies in Germany and Austria aimed at eradicating Nazi ideology from society. While denazification was crucial in dismantling the Nazi regime’s grip on power, it also led to widespread restrictions on speech and association, forcing many ordinary citizens to prove their political loyalty. Though these efforts were seen as necessary to rebuild Germany as a democratic society, they highlighted the tension between the goals of democracy and the means used to achieve them.
Similarly, Maoist China implemented “thought reform” campaigns aimed at indoctrinating citizens with communist ideology, often through coercive means. While the ideological goals of these campaigns were radically different from those of Western liberal democracies, the methods — surveillance, forced reeducation, and suppression of dissent — bear unsettling similarities to modern CVE programs. In both cases, the state assumed the role of arbiter of acceptable thought, stifling dissent in the name of ideological purity.
Social brainwashing: a new kind of coercion?
In a democracy, individuals should be free to hold and express their views without fear of state intervention. Yet, the CVE programs and broader policies advocating muscular liberalism seem to verge on what could be described as social brainwashing. By preemptively targeting individuals based on their thoughts or beliefs — whether through surveillance, intervention programs, or cultural pressure — governments are engaging in a subtle form of coercion. They are reshaping the cognitive environment of citizens, creating a climate where certain ideas are not just discouraged but actively repressed.
This social brainwashing extends beyond the mere suppression of violent ideologies. By promoting certain values as the only acceptable foundation for societal membership, governments risk creating a monoculture of thought, in which diversity of opinion is replaced by enforced conformity. In this way, forced democratisation undermines the core of democratic pluralism.
While there is no doubt that violent extremism and terrorism pose real threats, the response to these dangers must be carefully balanced against the need to preserve democratic freedoms. The danger of policies like Prevent and CVE is not just their immediate impact on targeted communities, but the precedent they set for future state overreach. If governments can curtail freedom of thought in the name of national security, what is to prevent them from expanding the scope of their efforts to include other forms of dissent or nonconformity?
This slippery slope could lead to a situation where the boundaries of acceptable speech and belief are drawn ever more narrowly, until democracy itself is hollowed out, reduced to little more than a façade. In a truly free society, the state should defend the right of individuals to think and speak freely, even when those ideas are unpopular or dangerous. Forced democratisation, in contrast, undermines this principle by coercively moulding the minds of citizens to fit a predetermined vision of what is acceptable.
Nonviolent extremism
The notion of nonviolent extremism complicates these concerns further, as it broadens the scope of state intervention to include ideas and beliefs that, while not directly advocating violence, are nonetheless deemed dangerous or destabilising. This concept blurs the line between thought and action, leading to a host of ethical and legal issues in democratic societies that pride themselves on protecting free expression.
Traditionally, the concept of extremism has been linked directly to violence or the incitement of violence, making it relatively clear when the state should intervene to protect public safety. However, the concept of nonviolent extremism introduces a more nebulous category of thought — one that includes ideologies, opinions, or behaviours that may challenge mainstream values but stop short of endorsing violence. This shift allows governments to cast a much wider net, potentially targeting individuals or groups based solely on their beliefs, even if they have not committed any criminal acts.
For instance, under the UK’s Prevent program, individuals expressing views considered “extreme” but nonviolent — such as radical religious or political beliefs — can be flagged for intervention, which can include one-to-one sessions with Home Office-approved “Intervention Providers” (IPs) who will help to “increase [your] theological understanding” and “challenge [your] extremist ideas or fixated thinking.” As the UK government explains in its official guidelines on “Protecting people susceptible to radicalisation,” (paragraph 163), these IPs are professional deprogrammers:
IPs are ideological and theological specialists. They are experienced in assessing ideological drivers, possess a high level of understanding around radicalising extremist narratives, and have the ability to counter them. They receive comprehensive training to support their roles through the IP professionalisation programme. IPs are also subject to a rigorous recruitment process and must receive ministerial approval to work on the programme.
This whole approach raises serious concerns about freedom of thought and expression, as citizens are now being scrutinised not for their actions or even their words but also for their opinions. Once the state begins to police belief systems rather than behaviours, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw clear lines around what constitutes acceptable dissent.
David Cameron’s call for “muscular liberalism” finds a natural extension in the pursuit of nonviolent extremism. Muscular liberalism, as articulated in his 2011 Munich speech, demands a more aggressive promotion of “liberal values” like individual liberty, democracy, and equality. However, the inclusion of nonviolent extremism in state security frameworks suggests that the active promotion of these values comes at the cost of tolerating certain kinds of dissent.
By targeting nonviolent extremism, states are essentially making value judgments about which ideas are permissible and which are not, often under the pretext that some ideologies — though nonviolent — could potentially lead to radicalization or societal harm. But this approach risks criminalising thought and imposing a uniform ideological vision that stifles the diversity of views that democracies claim to protect. It equates the mere expression of “unacceptable” beliefs with a potential security threat, a worrying development for any open society.
The Prevent strategy rests on the idea that there is a causal relationship between undefined “extremist” views and ideas, which may be espoused by lawful non-violent groups, and “terrorism.” But the alleged link between the two is not clearly articulated, nor is it clear where legality ends and potential criminality begins.The vast majority of people who hold allegedly extreme beliefs do not engage in violence or go on to become terrorists. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that not all those who engage in violent political action or terrorism necessarily need to possess radical beliefs, an argument carefully supported by such research as that of Kilcullen’s thesis on how counterinsurgency and counterterrorism breed “accidental” guerillas. The UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights has noted (paragraph 15):
there can be too much focus on religious ideology as the driver of terrorism and extremism
The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief has similarly cautioned against conflating extremism and radicalisation with violence (paragraph 26) since “there is no empirical evidence to suggest a predictable link or linear progression from ‘extremist’ thinking to violent acts.”
Chilling effects on free speech
One of the most significant dangers of including nonviolent extremism in state security frameworks is the chilling effect it can have on freedom of expression. When individuals know they could be scrutinised, labelled “extremists,” or reported to authorities for holding or expressing certain views, they are more likely to self-censor. This self-censorship can extend beyond individuals directly targeted by these programs, influencing wider communities and contributing to a culture of fear and silence.
This creates a paradox: the very freedoms that define liberal democracies — freedom of thought, speech, and belief — become endangered under the guise of protecting society from extremism. The pursuit of nonviolent extremism allows governments to shape and control the ideological landscape, suppressing ideas that challenge the status quo or pose uncomfortable questions to the political establishment. This suppression of dissent can gradually erode the robustness of democratic debate, narrowing the range of permissible ideas and homogenising political discourse.
The inclusion of nonviolent extremism in counterterrorism programs also sets a troubling precedent for state overreach. Once the state has the power to intervene based on nonviolent beliefs, there is little to stop it from expanding its efforts to other forms of dissent. The line between “extremist” beliefs and unpopular but legitimate critiques of government policy becomes increasingly blurred. This slippery slope raises the prospect of a society where dissenting voices, even those advocating for positive social change, are silenced under the pretext of national security.
We can already see hints of this overreach in the broad criteria used by some governments to define nonviolent extremism. In the UK, for example, critics of Prevent have pointed to instances where political activists, environmentalists, or even those challenging certain foreign policy decisions have been monitored or flagged as potential extremists. These are not violent actors, nor are they advocating violence, yet their inclusion in counterterrorism frameworks suggests that the scope of nonviolent extremism is dangerously broad and vague. Amnesty International pointed out these dangers in its recent report on the Prevent program, This Is The Thought Police: The Prevent duty and its chilling effect on human rights (p.24):
Given the broad definition of ‘extremism’, an individual becoming politically active and committing to a political ideology could look dangerously similar to them being groomed into terrorism. Indeed, Amnesty International’s own strategy of mobilising people to take action for human rights could be seen, through this lens, as indoctrination and grooming. Applying Prevent so broadly could effectively hinder people from organising and mobilising in any way seen as contrary to the interests of people in power.
In the context of Western democracies, policies that target nonviolent extremism may not be as overtly coercive as denazification or the Chinese thought reform camps, but the underlying principle is disturbingly similar. The state is increasingly positioning itself as the gatekeeper of acceptable ideas, and in doing so, it risks stifling the intellectual pluralism that makes democracy vibrant. By cracking down on nonviolent extremism, governments are fostering a climate of ideological uniformity that runs counter to the democratic ideal of a free and open society.
Social brainwashing through soft power
While authoritarian regimes may rely on explicit coercion to enforce ideological conformity, Western democracies engaged in combating nonviolent extremism use a softer form of power, often underpinned by legal and cultural pressure. Programs like Prevent subtly shift societal norms, encouraging citizens to police their own thoughts and those of others. Through educational initiatives, surveillance, and community-based interventions, governments are effectively engaging in a form of social brainwashing that compels citizens to adopt the state’s vision of acceptable beliefs.
This is particularly concerning because it operates under the veneer of safeguarding democracy, making it difficult to challenge. The discourse around nonviolent extremism is often framed in terms of protecting society from insidious ideological threats, but the consequence is a shrinking space for legitimate dissent. When the state claims the right to define and eliminate dangerous beliefs — even if they are nonviolent — it undermines the democratic principle that individuals should be free to think and believe as they choose, provided they do not incite harm.
Conclusion: the perils of expanding extremism to thought
The notion of nonviolent extremism is a troubling development in the landscape of modern democracies, particularly those that pride themselves on freedom of speech and thought. By expanding the definition of extremism to include nonviolent beliefs, Western governments are at risk of creating a surveillance and interventionist apparatus that suppresses dissent, curtails free expression, and narrows the scope of acceptable public discourse.
The paradox of forced democratisation lies at the heart of modern Western policies like muscular liberalism and CVE programs. While these efforts are often justified as necessary to protect society from extremism, they risk undermining the very freedoms that democracy is built upon. By suppressing dissent and enforcing ideological conformity, these policies tread dangerously close to authoritarianism. In the long run, a democracy that imposes its values through coercion risks eroding the pluralism and freedom that make it a democracy in the first place.
If democracy is to endure, it must resist the temptation to dictate thought and belief, and instead trust in the power of free and open debate to navigate the complexities of a diverse and pluralistic society.
For a follow-up to this article, click here.
