Is there such a thing as non-violent extremists?

Breaking down violent and non-violent extremism and how governments should deal with perpetrators of both.

It is no secret that there exists more ambiguity than certainty in the literature on terrorism, radicalism and extremism. More often than not, these three -isms tend to be used interchangeably with no proper distinction made between them or even within them. As Bush’s so-called “War on Terror” waged on and the number of transnational terrorist attacks grew, it became evident that there were many gaps in the literature that needed to be filled. One of these gaps was the absence of a distinction between violent and non-violent extremists. Extremism is generally understood as a set of ideas that contradict a society’s core values. While both violent and non-violent extremists tend to have overlapping values, they diverge in their methods. Non-violent extremists tend to be extremists in thought but not in method; meaning that their goals are extreme but the ways by which they go about attaining them are not. Even though their ideas are extreme, they neither support nor believe in violence. Some scholars claim that non-violent extremism eventually fosters an environment that leads people to commit acts of violence. This then puts states in a conundrum as it begs the question of whether or not they should treat violent and non-violent extremists the same. And if they are indeed different, should non-violent extremists considered to be appropriate allies in the fight against violent extremism? This essay will argue that non-violent extremists do exist and that they represent an opportunity for partnership with states thus, better enabling them to prevent further violence.

As a starting point, it would be helpful to think of extremism as a concept that lies on an ideological spectrum. To determine whether someone is an extremist or not, there must be some kind of benchmark that his/her ideologies are being compared against. The reality is that extremism is context-specific. Someone that might be thought of as an extremist may say the same about others[1]. So, if extremism is thought about in this way, it is seen that some lying on the spectrum are extremists only in thought, others only in method and others extremists in both[2]. However, some argue that this approach neglects the fact that some extremists might just be non-violent for the time being and plan on resorting to violent means later on and therefore form a part of the terrorism narrative[3]. Thus, it is a tactical decision to refrain from the use of violence rather than a question of a morally absolute Gandhian philosophy[4]. Nevertheless, it can be argued that this notion is in itself contradictory because if non-violence is a temporary tactical decision to halt violence because it is inconvenient or unnecessary at a certain point in time, then there simply exists no such thing as non-violent extremists, which is not the case in reality[5]. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that some members of non-violent groups who have claimed to be believers in the non-violent doctrine have gone on to become terrorists, prominent ones even[6]. In such cases, it would be unfair to completely reject the entire non-violent doctrine based on the individual decision that a member may have taken and chose to resort to violent ways. Rather, his/her choices should be attributed to the individual factors that led them to commit such acts[7]. This is particularly important for governments because if they shun the whole doctrine they would be excluding huge sections of their societies by deeming the non-violent ideology as linked to terrorism and losing the chance of having effective partners in their fight against it[8].

That being said, non-violent extremists should not be dealt with using the same framework of counterterrorism that is applied to their violent counterparts. Terrorism implicitly means that there is some element of violence in their thoughts and behavior which is not the case for non-violent extremists. Therefore, it is only violence and the threat of violence that should be a priority of counterterrorism efforts[9]. There are alternative paths to take when it comes to non-violent extremists. It is perhaps too ambitious of governments to believe that they can alter the belief system of extremists, especially on a larger scale. So, it is preferable that they set realistic goals like aiming to alter the methods by which these groups choose to make themselves heard[10]. Taking the example of Anglo-Saxon societies, it is plausible to say that they have somewhat succeeded in offering extremists alternative ways to express themselves in the public and political life[11]. In these societies, people have the democratic right to possess such views and so, it is the strength of democratic institutions that guarantees that the holders of these views will never be influential enough to gain powerful positions in government[12]. In this way, governments can forge partnerships that are essential to empowering such ideologies against those that aim to turn their supporters violent, while at the same time eliminating the probability of non-violent extremists becoming violent[13]. That is because they are allowed to express their opinions and their ideas and thus are not motivated to become violent[14]. Finally, endorsing the strategy taken by non-violent groups by giving them concessions may result in the triumph of non-violent extremists over other violent groups in an outbidding war, as their recognition by the government automatically gives them more “credibility” compared to violent extremists which receive none at all[15].

By distinguishing between violent and non-violent extremists, governments can use non-violent groups to their advantage and work with them to curb violent extremists that pose a major threat to their societies. If both of these categories are merged into one, governments run the risk of turning non-violent extremists to violence that otherwise, they would not have even considered resorting to. Thus, governments must work towards achieving a balance that enables extremists some degree of command that is powerful enough to steer people away from violence.

[1] Alex P. Schmid. “Violent and Non-Violent Extremism: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” ICCT Research Papers 5, no. 5 (2014): 11.

[2] Schmid, 12.

[3] Anthony Richards, “From Terrorism to ‘Radicalization’ to ‘Extremism’: Counterterrorism Imperative or Loss of Focus?” International Affairs 91, no. 2 (2015): 373.

[4] Schmid, 13–14.

[5] Richards, 373.

[6] Richards, 372.

[7] Richards, 372.

[8] Richards, 372.

[9] Richards, 376.

[10] Richards, 378.

[11] Richards, 378.

[12] Peter R. Neumann, “The Trouble with Radicalization.” International Affairs 89, no. 4 (2013): 386.

[13] Neumann, 386.

[14] Neumann, 390.

[15] Andrew H Kydd, and Barbara F Walter. “The Strategies of Terrorism.” International Security 31, no. 1 (2006): 78.