ARVAC Bulletin 99

Preventing Extremism

Following the 2005 London bombings, several working groups were established in an advisory capacity to analyse the roots of extremism among British Muslim communities and to help develop strategies to combat it. This article will explore the findings of one of the working groups charged with examining the effectiveness of existing public policy and associated delivery instruments and looking at how these can be improved so as to ‘support regional and local initiatives and community actions’. Framed within the context of current urban policies relating to regeneration, education, unemployment and poverty, the group’s deliberations were driven by the government’s stated anti-poverty, ‘improving life chances’ and widening opportunity imperatives for Muslim and non–Muslim communities alike.

Poverty and the reduction of life chances has an impact on all communities within the UK, whether white or non-white, Muslim or non-Muslim. It is therefore necessary to avoid simplistic assumptions about people, communities, cultures and ethnicity, and acknowledge that deprivation is one facet in a chain of circumstances that could possibly lead to ‘extremism’, political or religious. Deprivation and disaffection can make young white people equally susceptible to extreme views as it can for young people from other minority and faith groups.

The working group began its work by disseminating information about the range of government initiatives, partnerships and policies that are currently in place, alongside an examination of the decision-making processes that impact on effective and responsive public service delivery. This helped to establish which, if any, policy instruments are being effectively used to improve the life chances and opportunities for Muslim communities, where policy gaps exist and where value could be added to aid the direction of existing or future policies. The group also examined the government’s agenda around civil renewal and active citizenship. A common theme across the strands is the need to recast the relationship between state and citizen through the promotion of initiatives such as partnerships, community engagement and governance.
The working group recognised that the community cohesion and integration agenda is not an area where government can, or should, have all the answers. However, it has an important role to lead a robust and inclusive debate that penetrates both political and community arenas at all levels. Existing government policy strands, such as active citizenship, civic participation, civil renewal, community cohesion, social capital, and the emerging integration agenda all need to reflect the realities of Muslim communities’ day-to-day experiences. By far the greatest challenge in implementing the recommendations comes from the dependency of interagency collaboration, improved representation in key decision making bodies, improving the faith-responsiveness of existing structures, and building the capacity of the Muslim faith community to influence the direction of current and future policies and strategies.

Working with all communities has been a policy theme since the emergence of the community cohesion agenda following the aftermath of the street confrontations in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in the summer of 2001. The disturbances invariably referred to in the news media as ‘race riots’, were initially portrayed as a “law and order issue”. Various reports commissioned to examine issues arising from the disturbances and to provide recommendations for action, however, subsequently drew attention to the fracturing of local communities and the existence of ‘parallel lives’, whereby different communities and populations are seen to live, work and socialise separately.

Whilst the importance of the Cantle review produced in the wake of the 2001 disturbances cannot be discounted, the community cohesion evidence-based narrative in which it is framed is not sufficiently equipped to deal with the conceptual complexities and contested interpretations of community cohesion and integration particularly when viewed predominately through the prism of race and ethnicity. This prism is no longer sufficient for understanding the world in which we live. There is therefore, a need to re-define the terms and processes for traditional ‘race equality work’ in a way that captures the implications of a society where faith identity is increasingly significant. This has major implications for the future understanding of equality and social justice in Britain.

The crucial question in taking this on, is where does faith sit, alongside other ‘identities’ in the context of public policy? How and why is it as or more important than race when understanding and planning responses to needs of British Muslims? Muslims alongside other religious, ethnic and cultural groups want to see Government policies that respect religious difference and facilitate true integration, based on a respect for fundamental religious beliefs and differences. As Ansari points out, ‘a range of distinct identities is emerging among Muslims in Britain in the 21st century, but most of these identities have a strongly religious dimension’ (The Infidel Within, p.46).

The working group emphasised the importance of inter-faith and cross-community dialogue. Targeting only Muslim communities would result in further stigmatising them as being the ‘problem’, which could potentially lead to increased alienation whilst society at large plays little or no role in the integration process. The group acknowledged the important work that the Government has undertaken to tackle poverty and social exclusion, recognising its multi-faceted and inter-linked nature with prominence given to reducing child poverty and ensuring that no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live or their backgrounds. However, whilst the diversity of experience between minority ethnic groups is acknowledged, ethnic inequalities remain large in many dimensions, including faith. There are conspicuous omissions relating to minority ethnic communities where policy (let alone impact) appears to be lagging behind analysis and target-setting, and where the scale of action looks less impressive by comparison with the challenge in tackling inequalities between ethnic groups.

Currently little accurate data exists for Muslim communities and from the limited evidence available, there is clearly a hierarchy of deprivation within Muslim communities. This needs to be further investigated, with universal programmes being supplemented with targeted programmes for specific sections of the Muslim communities.

Over recent decades, government urban policy has attempted to deal with the issues of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion through a plethora of regional and local strategies. Strategies have shifted from being solely economic, social or physically led to being underpinned by the principle of ‘sustainable communities’. However, an opportunity has been missed for inter-departmental co-operation on regeneration, as future policies and practice at both macro and micro level need to be shaped by considerations of faith. Specific faith outcomes in Public Service Agreement targets and Comprehensive Performance Assessments in this area and others will go a long way in improving life chances and widening opportunity for all communities at the local level.

People working at the coalface of regeneration need to debate these issues and highlight other vital questions affecting day-to-day experience. What do we actually wish to achieve through improved community cohesion and integration in the long run and what is regeneration’s role in delivering it practically? Community cohesion and integration is much more than just a means to prevent the racial tension and civil unrest that surfaced in the north of England in 2001. The primary objective must be sustainability. Throughout the country, local planning, education, housing and funding policies can be used collectively to build mixed, tolerant communities and new resources. Yet this will not happen in the absence of a unified approach. As regeneration projects impact all areas of social, economic and political activity, they are the key to bringing diverse initiatives together for ongoing community development.

In addition, regeneration partnerships and agencies have a clear role to play in influencing the development of community cohesion through their funding strategies. Targeting is often based on areas of greatest needs, but not allocated as such. Government and Whitehall need to appreciate the value of ‘softer’ outcomes and these need to be factors when determining funding criteria and assessing ‘hard’ outcomes, with penalties on regeneration agencies that do not deliver on these targets. Similarly, they need to invest in the process of capacity building of communities who are ill equipped in the tools and expertise required in applying for funds. The decision making process is as essential as the role of decision makers, where grant allocation is concerned. The role and makeup of the Local Strategic Partnership is central in ensuring that common strategic priorities take community considerations into account and that ‘local area agreements’ are shaped accordingly.
The need to focus on projects stimulating and supporting inter-community communication and co-operation has been acknowledged for a while, but what is missing is the exchange of best practice. There needs to be the development of mechanisms to deliver this across government and the wider community. This applies equally to staff skills and questions of funding and delivery. Many employees within statutory bodies and agencies remain ill equipped to respond adequately to the needs of some faith or racial groups, and yet there continues to be little emphasis on training.

A more comprehensive set of objectives and a higher profile for regeneration-led community cohesion initiatives must be drawn up. These need to relate to long-term, holistic social outcomes: employment, skills development, increased up take of education activities to name but a few. With the right participants, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, communicating with government, the tendency towards abstract discussion about theories can be prevented, and debate achieved, with resulting practical strategy. Clearly the area of regeneration delivery requires a culture change within government to harness new ways of thinking and the exchange of ideas.

The recommendations of the working group seek to add value by bringing the interfaith dimension to the dominant discourses concerning key themes in contemporary public policy, including community cohesion, social mix, social capital, civil renewal and integration. The central issues identified as requiring urgent priority were; improving the capacity of Muslims to participate and engage in local and regional processes - and to understand the barriers to effective participation; addressing the lack of leadership and representation and trust among the Muslim faith communities especially the young and women; and increasing confidence and competence among public policy and delivery agencies so that public service choice and delivery for Muslim faith communities is improved.

The working group presented six recommendations to the Home Secretary in September 2005:

• Improve data collection on Muslim communities through faith monitoring;
• Invest in interfaith work mapping;
• Increase the faith confidence and competence of public bodies through secondments and short-term contracts into and out of central,
regional and local government agencies;
• Strengthen the capacity of Muslim voluntary and civic organisations;
• Support places of worship, including Mosques, to become co-located within community hubs;
• Link community cohesion and community safety policy strands.

The way forward
Whilst the prevention, discrimination and promotion of equalities is still essential, Ted Cantle spells out another challenge; “in a diverse society how do you make sure different minorities as well as the majority community actually relate to each other, and have a common sense of belonging and purpose?” This will be achieved at an absolute minimum, through increasing public sector faith understanding at all levels and a reframing of multicultural policy. At a strategic level, bodies such as the Urban Task Force need to become far more representative of communities they seek to serve. Similarly, at a local level the setting of strategic priorities through local area agreements and strategic partnerships needs to be more attuned to all communities needs.

There is currently confusion at local level concerning lines of accountability when looking at race and faith issues. In particular, the roles of local authorities, local strategic partnerships, race equality councils and interfaith networks need to be more clearly defined, with an effective partnership framework for these agencies established. In addition, local infrastructure needs to be strengthened through capacity building and increased funding, in order to turn the national agenda on cohesion and integration into a practical reality.

“Working Together to Prevent Extremism” (2005) can be downloaded for free from www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Nahid Majid is Associate Director of Turner and Townsend International Construction and Management Consultants. This article is written in her individual capacity as Convener of the Regional and Local Strategies and Community Actions working group (edited by Stefan Simanowitz)

Contact: nahid.majid@turntown.co.uk