Quelques travaux sur la prévention de la radicalisation au Royaume-Uni (programme “Prevent”) :

• Francesco Ragazzi, “Countering terrorism and radicalisation: Securitising social policy?”, Critical Social Policy, vol. 37, n° 2, p. 163-179, First Published December 23, 2016.  Résumé par l’auteur : “While social and security policies have always overlapped in complex ways, recent developments in counter-terrorism policy suggest that Western European states, and the United Kingdom more specifically, are accelerating what can be termed the ‘securitisation of social policy’ – namely, the increased submission of social policy actors and their practices to the logics of security and social control. With the PREVENT programme remaining highly controversial, what are the effects of these state practices? Has David Cameron’s project of ‘muscular liberalism’, aimed at integration and community cohesion, been enforced through counter-radicalisation policies? This themed issue examines preventative counter-terrorism policies in the UK and the politics of religion, ethnicity and race they enact. The relation between social policy and critical security studies is explored by an interdisciplinary group of scholars.”

• Gabe Mythen, Sandra Walklate, Elizabeth-Jane Peatfield, “Assembling and deconstructing radicalisation in PREVENT: A case of policy-based evidence making?”,  Critical Social Policy, vol. 37, n° 2, p. 180-201, First Published December 17, 2016. Résumé par les auteurs : “In the last 15 years the concept of radicalisation has come to prominence as a means of explaining the process by which individuals become attracted to extremist ideology and endorse the actions of terrorist groups. Post 9/11, radicalisation has gained traction in policy, political and media circles in Britain, being commonly connected to the threat of ‘home-grown’ terrorism. In this article, we critique the understanding of radicalisation outlined in the UK Government’s PREVENT strategy. We focus specifically on how particular understandings of radicalisation are constructed, evidenced and operationalised in PREVENT and the way in which these understandings align with party political worldviews. It is posited that an unremitting focus on the role of religious ideology in the process of radicalisation within PREVENT mutes recognition of otherwise important material grievances expressed by individuals involved in violent extremism. At a broader level, our analysis adds to growing concerns around the deleterious impacts of the securitisation of social policy.”

• La thèse de doctorat de Claire Arènes soutenue en décembre 2014, lauréate du prix Le Monde et publiée aux PUF (La prévention du terrorisme en Grande-Bretagne, 2016) * Titre : “Le programme PREVENT et les musulmans en Grande-Bretagne, enjeux et contradictions de la “prévention du terrorisme”. Résumé de la thèse par l’auteur : “Les attentats du 7 juillet 2005, commis par quatre musulmans britanniques, placent la « radicalisation endogène », processus menant des Britanniques à apporter leur soutien au terrorisme, au centre des préoccupations du gouvernement. Cette recherche s’intéresse au paradoxe que constitue le programme de prévention de l’extrémisme violent (Prevent) formulé après ces attentats : supposé remédier au « manque d’intégration » des communautés musulmanes britanniques dans l’ethos national, il encourage de fait le financement d’initiatives portées par ou pour les musulmans. D’autre part, il prétend œuvrer à la construction de relations de confiance entre musulmans et institutions britanniques, mais place ces relations sous le prisme du contre-terrorisme. Le programme Prevent se place donc sous le signe d’une double ambivalence : renforcement d’une identité exclusive musulmane au lieu de faire primer une identité civique britannique, et « sécuritarisation » des rapports entre musulmans et institutions plutôt que construction d’une relation de confiance. Ce travail postule que ce décalage s’explique par la résurgence d’un cadre différentialiste propre à la Grande-Bretagne, où la société est vue comme composée de groupes ethno-culturels distincts. Ce cadre de pensée, qui a constitué la base des politiques de gestion de la diversité, a été réinvesti par les politiques de contre-terrorisme après 2005 pour « gagner les cœurs et les esprits » des populations dont se réclament les terroristes, et remobilisé par les acteurs de la mise en œuvre de Prevent à l’échelon local. Ce sont les apories de Prevent que sonde ce travail de thèse, en inscrivant cette stratégie dans la filiation des politiques de sécurité et de gestion de la diversité britanniques, et en la confrontant à sa mise en œuvre sur le terrain.”

• Lauren Powell, “Counter-Productive Counter-Terrorism. How is the dysfunctional discourse of Prevent failing to restrain radicalisation?”, Journal for Deradicalization. 2016; Fall (8), p. 46-99. Résumé de l’article par l’auteur : “This paper explores why the Prevent strand of the UK Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, is failing to achieve success in reducing radicalisation of young Muslims. By refusing to engage with extremists, and denying ‘extreme’ ideas a platform for expression, this paper will explain how the importance of cultural-linguistic epistemologies, and their role in extremism, has been overlooked. Rather than striving to understand how socio-political factors influence one’s reading of religious doctrines or interpretation of ideology, Prevent understands ideology to be the core radicalising agent, used by influential figures who can exploit the grievances of the vulnerable. The problematic repercussions of this will be addressed throughout, highlighting the various, and extensive, criticisms that Prevent has faced from academics, practitioners and commentators – primarily that it is counter-productive. The importance of the post-9/11 neoconservative paradigm in underpinning Prevent will be explained, but a Neo-Weberian approach, as a better lens through which to understand radicalisation, will be proposed, to ultimately trump the simplistic, yet currently dominant, ‘Conveyor Belt’ theory. Based on this, recommendations are made for an improved Prevent, rooted in the notion that radicalisation, extremism, or terrorism cannot be prevented, without knowing the motives, the views, and the assumptions of the radicals, the extremists, and those vulnerable to engaging with them.”

• Matt Dryden, “Radicalisation: The Last Taboo in Safeguarding and Child Protection? Assessing Practitioner Preparedness in Preventing the Radicalisation of Looked-After Children“,  Journal for Deradicalization, Winter, n° 13, p. 101-136, 2017. Résumé de l’article par l’auteur : “Radicalisation is fast becoming one of the most acute and pressing safeguarding and child protection issues of the whole century (NSPCC, 2016). However, the issue of looked-after children as potential recruits for extremist groups has been largely overlooked, despite the universal acknowledgement that looked-after children represent the most vulnerable of all demographics within society. This research collected rare and vital primary data by interviewing practitioners within looked-after children’s, residential, and respite services. The study established that practitioners lacked basic awareness of radicalisation and extremism, the Prevent strategy, and the Channel programme. It was discovered that practitioners were unsure of what constitutes the potential indicators of radicalisation, and how and to whom such concerns should be reported. It became apparent that radicalisation as a safeguarding and child protection issue has not been afforded a level of focus adequate and proportionate to the risk posed, and that other issues, namely child sexual exploitation, remain the primary concern in safeguarding contexts.”

Mais également :

• Rizwaan Sabir, “Blurred lines and false dichotomies: Integrating counterinsurgency into the UK’s domestic ‘war on terror’” (First Published January 12, 2017; pp. 202–224, Abstract).
• Tufyal Choudhury, “The radicalisation of citizenship deprivation” (First Published January 9, 2017; pp. 225–244, Abstract).
• Lee Jarvis, Michael Lister, “‘As a woman…’; ‘As a Muslim…’: Subjects, positions and counter-terrorism powers in the United Kingdom”(First Published January 12, 2017; pp. 245–267, Abstract).
• Stephen Cowden, Gurnam Singh, “Community cohesion, communitarianism and neoliberalism” (First Published October 18, 2016; pp. 268–286, Abstract).
• Feddes, Allard R.; Mann, Liesbeth; Doosje, Bertjan, “Increasing self-esteem and empathy to prevent violent radicalization: a longitudinal quantitative evaluation of a resilience training focused on adolescents with a dual identity” (Journal of Applied Social Psychology. July 2015, Vol. 45 Issue 7).
• Thèse de doctorat de Mohammed Elshimi, “The concept and practice of de-radicalisation in the PREVENT strand of the UK counter-terrorism strategy : what is de-radicalisation?“,University of Exeter, 2015. Thèse en PDF : ici.
• Anthony Richards, “The problem with ‘radicalization’: the remit of ‘Prevent’ and the need to refocus on terrorism in the UK”, International Affairs, Volume 87, Issue 1, 1 January 2011, p. 143–152.
• Heath-Kelly, Charlotte, Counter-Terrorism and the Counterfactual: Producing the ‘Radicalisation’ Discourse and the UK PREVENT Strategy, British Journal of Politics & International Relations. August 2013, Vol. 15 Issue 3.

Pour chercher d’autres occurrences sur le sujet, consulter le site du CNRS (https://bib.cnrs.fr/) ou la plateforme CAIRN.