Civic Approaches to Confronting Violent Extremism

The report argues that the traditional 'Countering Violent Extremism' (CVE) framework is flawed and 'toxic' because it relies on discredited theories of a linear path to radicalization. Instead, it advocates for a 'resilience' model led by civil society organizations (CSOs) and social services, with law enforcement acting only as a supporting partner focused on criminal behavior. Key findings emphasize that there is no causal link between religious ideology and violence, and that effective interventions require 'alternative narratives' that acknowledge the 'kernel of truth' in grievances. The document also highlights a significant 'trust gap' between governments and CSOs, suggesting that transparency and the protection of civil liberties are essential for effective collaboration.

• The Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) framework is widely viewed as ineffective and harmful because it presumes a consistent, observable path to radicalization that social scientists have discredited.
• There is no direct causal or predictive link between religious or political ideology and the commission of violent acts; violence is instead driven by complex, non-linear psychological, social, and political forces.
• To be effective, prevention and resilience efforts should be led by CSOs and social services rather than law enforcement, as the latter's involvement can compromise trust and discourage at-risk individuals from seeking help.
• A significant 'trust gap' exists between governments and CSOs due to past surveillance and a lack of transparency in program design, which can be mitigated through public education on civil liberties and visible public dialogues.
• Effective alternative narratives must acknowledge the 'kernel of truth'—the legitimate social or political grievances—that extremist groups exploit to recruit followers.
• The most successful narrative interventions occur on an interpersonal, one-on-one basis, often involving former extremists working with CSOs to build relationships with at-risk individuals.
• Governments should shift focus from exclusively targeting Muslim communities to addressing all forms of violent extremism, including right-wing and anti-government violence, to avoid further ostracizing minority groups.
• CSOs lack sufficient resources for public communications and standardized monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools, which hinders their ability to justify programs to the public and measure success.

APA

Barzegar, A., Powers, S., & Karhili, N. E. (2016). Civic Approaches to Confronting Violent Extremism. Institute for Strategic Dialogue. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/civic_approaches_to_confronting_violent_extremism_-_digital_release.pdf

Chicago

Barzegar, Abbas, Shawn Powers, and Nagham El Karhili. Civic Approaches to Confronting Violent Extremism. Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2016. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/civic_approaches_to_confronting_violent_extremism_-_digital_release.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Barzegar |first1=Abbas |last2=Powers |first2=Shawn |last3=Karhili |first3=Nagham El |title=Civic Approaches to Confronting Violent Extremism |publisher=Institute for Strategic Dialogue |date=September 2016 |url=https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/civic_approaches_to_confronting_violent_extremism_-_digital_release.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{barzegar2016civic, author = {Barzegar, Abbas and Powers, Shawn and Karhili, Nagham El}, title = {{Civic Approaches to Confronting Violent Extremism}}, institution = {Institute for Strategic Dialogue}, year = {2016}, month = sep, url = {https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/civic_approaches_to_confronting_violent_extremism_-_digital_release.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }