1 / 17

Framing the Challenges: Civil Society Perspectives on P/CVE

This report explores civil society perspectives on extremism and violent extremism, the impact of the P/CVE agenda on civil society, and approaches to addressing extremism. It also discusses the relevance and opportunities for UN-civil society collaboration in this context.

hpriester
Download Presentation

Framing the Challenges: Civil Society Perspectives on P/CVE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Framing the Challenges: Civil Society Perspectives on P/CVE Sanam Naraghi Anderlini International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) UNDP Oslo Governance Center March 14th 2016

  2. Key Points • Civil society perspectives/definitions of • Extremism/ violent extremism • Relevance of Civil Society • Impact of the P/CVE agenda on civil society • Our approaches to addressing extremism • Opportunities for UN-civil society collaboration

  3. Context and Terminology • Identity issues: challenge of pluralism & social cohesion – • Governance/Economic Issues: Must acknowledge underlying conditions created by ‘extreme capitalism’/neoliberalism of past 30 yrs. • Destruction of social welfare/services, rising inequality, injustice, corruption. • Vacuum left by states filled by non-state –often religious/ethno-centric movements providing services & spreading own ideologies. • Wars/Security issues: From 1979-2001 Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, 9/11Occupation of Iraq, Syria, drones (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya…) • Islamic contexts: Wahabbism going mainstream post 1979 & accelerated in 2011. (Universities, schools, laws, governments, satellite TV, mosques)

  4. Defining Violent Extremism “Beliefs and actions of people who support or use violence to achieve ideological, religious, or political goals” But movements couched in religions – use faith to their advantage • Multiple terms used: radicalization, fundamentalism, conservatism, extremism • Labeling can limit prospects for engagement & understanding rationale of those who join movements • Can fuel their rejection of ‘us’ as much as we judge them.

  5. Characteristics of Contemporary Extremist movements Many movements use religion because plays to faith & to challenge it, is to challenge God. Movements motivated more often related to economic and political power. But use of identity & faith – proving highly effective esp when little knowledge of religion. Rigid interpretation of religion forced on others Characterized by non-fluid definitions of culture, religion, nationalism, ethnicity or sect creating exclusionary, patriarchal and intolerant communities Using social or economic coercion, lawswith moral justification. Existing institutions deemed corrupt or ignorant – pitting them against the ‘truth’ Pressing for 1 dominant identity – so fomenting rifts Intolerance, discrimination, use of violence justified for religious ends is a characteristic of some extremist movements, but not all.* *Ican Extremism as Mainstream: Implications for Women, Development & Security in the MENA/Asia Region,” 2014.

  6. Overview Extremisms going Mainstream Over past 30 years & especially in past 15 – seeing accelerated rise of extremismS. Creating more permissive environment for intolerance and unleashing minority violent forces (which creates negative vicious cycle of anger/mistrust/revenge)

  7. Why Gender’s Relevant? 1. The Actors: Predominantly men (older/status) recruiting younger men (and women) exploiting masculine traits (men as providers, protectors, social prestige), couched in injustice & religion as the alternative panacea. ie. Power of age/status over youth & Peer to peer pressures

  8. Why Gender’s Relevant? 2. The ideologies – Very circumscribed views on role/status of women in society • Understand power/influence of women so aim to co-opt, coerce or silence

  9. Why’s Gender Relevant? 3. The Forces that challenge them – across world women’s movements first to see/speak out/stand up to them (and be attacked by them)

  10. How about the P/CVE Agenda? • Key conceptual challenge: Preventing/Countering are negative are AGAINST extremism • But we need to articulate what we are FOR. • Can’t say ‘human rights’ or ‘development’ when clearly condoning/enabling abuses. Double standards no longer viable • How do we address legitimate grievances? • What vision, values, pathways do we offer? • Technical approaches not sufficient – need social/cultural approaches too What’s our story??

  11. How and Why Does Civil Society Matter? • Provides space for social cohesion/pluralism across ethnic/race/religious lines – through activities based on shared interests. • Provides space for dissent, grievance, expression – constructive engagement/critique of state – not VIOLENT or militant. • Offers alternative interpretations and approaches within FAITH & Universal Human Rights norms. • Access, authenticity, rootedness • Global to local connectivity • Cost effective & innovative

  12. Examples of CSO work: • Accessing youth- counter narrative & interpretations & related activities (economic, community based) • Demilitarizing/rehabilitating • Critical thinking for mothers of radicalized youth & income generation • Shoring up space for equal rights/human rights • Citizen activism – accepting difference/diversity • Exposure to principles of non-violent conflict resolution, - --inoculation of youth against extremisms • Arts, sports, media – cultural approaches to raising awareness & reaching wider public audience.

  13. P/CVE Agenda Threats to CSO • States using P/CVE agenda to close public space for dissent/civic activism, including media, NGOs. • States pressuring/co-opting CSOs (deradicalizing youth accepted but public mobilization to hold state accountable for services - perceived as ‘regime change’. • Direct funding of NGOs more difficult (foreign agents, terrorism lists) • CSOs being hollowed out – staff burn out, and departure due to crises/violence. • Burdens of/on CSOs increasing but International community not listening to them re. global policies.

  14. ICAN’s Approach • Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership (WASL) – loose alliance focus on promoting rights, peace, pluralism to counter/prevent extremism. • Horizontal connectivity across regions/countries to learn, share, scale initiatives – solidarity, collaborative initiatives, cost sharing, technical assistance/capacity development. • Vertical connectivity to international community – analysis, expertise of local actors to IC. • Cross sectoral connectivity to arts/media/religious/private sectors.

  15. Horizontal Connectivity & Support

  16. Vertical: Informing Global PoliciesRange of issues ICAN/WASL

  17. Concluding Thoughts: • Proliferation of actors, complexity of problem, internal/transnational nature of challenges • Requires collaboration across multilateral-state-civil society & respect for independence of CSOs & constructive critique/dialogues with states • Requires attention/expertise re socio-cultural & psycho-social issues • 70th Anniversary of the UN – “We the Peoples” • Change in existing practices –but wealth of opportunity • Precedence & modalities exist – challenge is to strengthen, develop based on division of labor & comparative strengths

More Related