Above Reproach: A New Conversational Framework for Prevent and Counter-Radicalisation Policy

Prevent – the UK’s controversial counter-radicalisation strategy – is heavily criticised for its core premise that counter-radicalisation policy and activity should seek to uphold so-called ‘British values’ as its primary aim. This paper demonstrates the extent to which these ‘British values’ are ideologically associated with the right-wing and, therefore, promote the normalisation of right-wing extremism as an engrained and institutional feature of policy. Despite calls to more fully address right-wing extremism in revised conceptualisations of the Prevent strategy, this research paper documents the failure to do so – specifically as a consequence of flawed policy design and ideological construction – and the implications of this for successful policy realisation. In doing so, the paper demonstrates that this discriminatory issue is even more structural than previously thought and questions the very nature of counter-radicalisation policy in the Western context. Specifically, the paper challenges the conceptualisation of engagement at the heart of current models of policy construction. The Prevent Strategy (and Western forms of counter-radicalisation more widely) is presented as an ‘open conversation’ that promotes ‘talking about’ vulnerability to radicalisation as a means of preventing and countering that radicalisation. In addressing this within the context of the above criticisms of bias and discrimination, this paper draws parallels between this debate and that between Stanley Cavell and John Rawls to argue that the way this ‘conversation’ is conceptualised within Prevent is intrinsically flawed; more explicitly, that Prevent is based on an inadequate conceptualisation of democracy. As Rawls sought to avoid violence by defining principles of justice in advance, resulting however in leaving those with resentment with no outlet to voice their grievance, so Prevent, seeking to avoid violence by defining peaceful ‘British values’ in advance excludes certain sectors of the UK population a priori, which risks leaving them without an adequate response to their concerns. Moreover, the paper discusses Rawl’s (erroneous) conception of holding certain views within a conversation as ‘above reproach’ and beyond challenge – to show that this has occurred in respect of ‘British values’ within Prevent as a key explanation of failed policy. The paper will also argue that this attempt to avoid violence through inappropriate means of counter-radicalisation paradoxically risks creating the circumstances for greater terrorist hostility. In response, the paper proposes an alternative means of conceptualising and structuring counter-radicalisation policy. We suggest that Cavell’s response to Rawls could help reduce hostilities. Promoting the virtues of listening, responsiveness, and willingness to change on both sides, Cavell’s theorisation of democracy as Emersonian conversation can inform an original and more effective approach to UK counter-radicalisation policy that would be more appropriate for the democracy that Prevent claims to protect. This approach also provides the means to address the inherent disparity relating to right-wing extremism within Prevent as it stands.