The Summit on Countering Violent Extremism has recently concluded in Washington. Its purpose was to "prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalising, recruiting or inspiring [other] individuals." To the consternation of some and the applause of others, the White House refused to say that their focus is on militant Islamist movements. But since only one other group was mentioned in passing during the Summit, it is safe to say that the focal point of the whole affair was violent political Islamism.
The government’s position was summarized by John Kerry in a recent Washington Post editorial. Kerry’s analysis is largely based on ‘deprivation theory,’ which looks at the ways in which an individual or group may actually be or may feel disadvantaged. According to Kerry, factors such as a lack of good governance are the main drivers of radical extremism.
One can start with the fact that it is hard to aim for good governance when one country can just waltz in and overthrow another’s admittedly terrible, yet sovereign regime. Not surprisingly, these sorts of geo-political games often end in blood-baths. One of the ‘deprivation factors’ for Iraqis fighting in the ranks of radical militias is that the U.S. came in and took away the power from them - the Sunni Arab minority – igniting a civil conflict of massive proportions in the process. But self-reflection is not something one really expects from the American government.
The dominating idea of the Summit was that it is largely poverty and desperation that motivate most violent extremists. Unfortunately this does not apply to majority of people drawn to violent global Islamist organizations. Those from Muslim-majority countries who join these international movements tend to come from middle-to-upper class backgrounds. Most western recruits to the Islamic State are also middle-class, second generation kids whose families ‘made it’ in their adopted countries. The grievance-based approach to their radicalization that is touted by the government is simply inapplicable to most of their situations.
A stark example of this is provided by western Muslims who, despite challenges, generally enjoy the benefits of ‘better governance,’ and the kind of opportunities that most around the world can only dream of. It is hard to argue, for instance, that Indonesia has better governance than Belgium. Transparency International ranks the latter at number fifteen on the ‘Corruption Index,’ while the former comes in at one hundred and seven. Undoubtedly, Belgium provides infinitely more opportunities for social advancement and a good life than places where most of the world’s Muslims reside. Yet there are far more recruits to IS from tiny Belgium than there are from a couple of the world’s most populous Muslim-majority countries combined.
Then there is the question of numerous Saudi recruits. They often fill the ranks of suicide bombers in Iraq’s Sunni militias - a decade ago as well as now. For anyone familiar with the Gulf, it is very hard to imagine these young Sunni Arab male with roots from the peninsula as being in any way deprived. Often wealthy, they are able to enjoy a standard of living that is heavily subsidized by the government. All doors are open for them – often by an army of servants. The government has invested massively in education because they want to lessen dependence on foreigners, on whom Saudi’s economy and ability to function as a viable state is completely reliant. Post-secondary education is free for nationals, up to and including enrolment in top U.K. and U.S. universities for post-graduate studies - health care and other perks included.
Gulf countries are very safe for the ‘right’ people – as long as one doesn’t add the crimes against South Asian labourers or sexual abuse of domestics to statistics, or mind the occasional witch-hunt - though often the two are thoughtfully combined. If a man does pursue higher education in the KSA, a well-paying job and a whirlwind of promotions are a virtual guarantee. When it comes to that often touted word ‘privilege’, very few in the world have it quite to the same degree as the ‘right’ kind of national of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
If indeed people who feel that their government will provide for their needs are less likely to become radicalized, as the White House asserts, how does one explain many Saudis giving up that privilege to fight abroad in such large numbers? As it happens, they themselves might explain it as a matter of ‘good governance’ – though not in a way that Kerry meant it in his op-ed. Not surprisingly, these young men and the westerners who join them are not aching for a more accountable democratic process. To them, good governance means absolute dominance of (their version of) sharia over society, not permitting ‘infidel’ armed forces on the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula, and numerous other theologically-inspired considerations.
When Reverends Michael Bray, Paul Hill and friends were running around the United States burning down abortion clinics and shooting doctors, no one argued that this is happening because these male, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have somehow been disadvantaged by society. That, of course, would have sounded absurd. Rather, these men and the Christian Identity movement that inspired their movement supported a political cause, which they justified by their religious beliefs, and in pursuit of which they were willing to engage in acts of violence.
Similarly, despite the diagnosis of the White House and the representatives of Muslim organizations who attended the Summit, ‘good governance’ and ‘jobs’ is not what most violent religious radicals are looking for. What they want – whether regionally or globally - is more power through an imposition of religion into politics, as well as full control over how that religion is defined. But it is hard to figure out how to prevent their potential recruits from radicalizing, if their motivations are completely misattributed.