Six Axioms for a Radical Alternative to Prevent

Those in the Prevent and counter-extremism establishment often decry the lack of an alternative from their critics. Yahya Birt proposes six axioms that should underpin a radical alternative.

(1) its prevention measures should be evidence-based and proven to be efficacious.
(2) it should not be based on discriminatory profiling of certain communities.
(3) Where no human rights have been breached, any alternative policy should not interfere with the normal functioning of religious communities.
(4) A rational prevention policy would not discount multi-causal factors
(5) An alternative policy has to be fully open to democratic accountability and scrutiny
(6) It should be underpinned by the concept of “sustainable security”

Briefly, “sustainable security” may be defined as:

(a) Security as a freedom: a “shared freedom from fear and want, and the freedom to live in dignity”

(b) Security as a common right: security cannot be built on the insecurity of others; it can only be based on solidarity, not dominance

(c) Security as a patient practice: security only grows through inclusion and social and economic responsibility; it cannot be based on coercion.

(d) Security as a shared responsibility: it is a common source of well-being held by all, it cannot be usurped by “a self-selected set of powerful states”.

The “sustainable security” analysis sees that the current security model is broken and driven by four main factors: (i) resource scarcity and the climate crisis; (ii) inequality; (iii) militarism; and (iv) violent conflict.

Notes

[1] The first five axioms were first proposed a little bit more detail here, Y. Birt, “Is the Independent Review of Prevent an Opportunity or a Trap, Medium, 22 January 2019, https://medium.com/@yahyabirt/is-the-independent-review-of-prevent-an-opportunity-or-a-trap-b4f732913cb, accessed 5 December 2019.

[2] “Sustainable security” was developed by the Oxford Research Group. For an introductory paper outlining this critical concept’s core principles, see this discussion paper, “Rethinking Security”, here: https://rethinkingsecurityorguk.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/rethinking-security-a-discussion-paper.pdf, accessed 5 December 2019.

[3] It is heartening (although I hadn’t read it before writing this post) that this report, Ruth Blakely et al, Leaving the War on Terror: A Progressive Alternative to Counter-Terrorism (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, July 2019), Chapter 4, https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/leaving_the_war_on_terror_online.pdf, accessed 6 December 2019, draws out the same principles albeit expressed in a different language: democracy, evidence, human rights, community consent, peace. Their schema can be slotted into mine this way (see below). Reverse-engineering the criticism of Prevent leads to the same axioms:

(1) its prevention measures should be evidence-based and proven to be efficacious. (TNI: B: Evidence)
(2) it should not be based on discriminatory profiling of certain communities. (TNI: D: Community Consent)
(3) Where no human rights have been breached, any alternative policy should not interfere with the normal functioning of religious communities. (TNI: C: Human Rights)
(4) A rational prevention policy would not discount multi-causal factors (TNI: B: Evidence)
(5) An alternative policy has to be fully open to democratic accountability and scrutiny (TNI: A: Democracy)
(6) It should be underpinned by the concept of “sustainable security” (TNI: A: Democracy; TNI: E: Peace).