1. Introduction
In the contemporary world, we face a new scenario that influences the spread of radical and extremism attitudes: the syndemic global society. This is a society characterised from an increasing interaction between the biological and the social in disease burden as well as a complex set of inequalities, economic and social imbalances, risks, and threats at both local and global level (Horton, 2020; Singer et al., 2017).
The transformation of the Jihad arena toward an increasing fragmentation and inner unrest after the defeat of the Caliphate in Syria and Iraq, the spread of far-right extremism, the rekindling of the migration crisis, the increase of international tensions and, last but not least, the social-economic crisis and riots due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, are the main challenges with which the “syndemic syndrome” occurs in Europe. These challenges directly or indirectly put into question the quality of our democracy because they focus on the crisis of integration and the crisis of participation (Antonelli, 2022).
Indeed, in this scenario, it is necessary to re-think the approach toward extremism and radicalisation. Such a rethinking must involve not just socio-technical systems (e.g. law enforcement agencies, social work, local bureaucracies and so forth) but also politics and ruling classes. In general, policy and politics towards extremism and radicalisation have been changed in recent years, after some spectacular and massive terrorist attacks occurred (Coolsaet, 2018; Githens-Mazer, 2012; Schmid, 2013). In addition, politics has delegated the task to contrast extremist to specific technical or bureaucratic agencies, depoliticising the problem. On the contrary, this open letter is based on three suggestions:
First, countering extremism and radicalisation requires an understanding of both their socio-political meaning in each context and their main developmental trends. Moving from a “reactive” and “limited” to an “anticipatory” and “systemic” approach.
Secondly, the coming crisis of our democratic societies is twofold: a crisis of participation and a crisis of integration. If we consider “extremism” as a set of mass socio-political attitudes toward a de-legitimation of the system, and “radicalisation” as a process that involves minorities pushing them to political violence, the first one is the place where the double crisis manifests itself and the second one is the place of an abnormal and dysfunctional response to such a crisis occurs.
Thirdly, countering extremism and radicalisation, especially in a fragile and boiling society such as the syndemic one, requires a political and systemic response and not a simple restyling.
5. Recommendations
According to the previous analysis, following recommendations can be suggested:
To contrast mass extremism, in a preventive perspective, involving different actors, “civil society” and “politics society”, is the best way to contrast violent radicalisation and violent minorities, because of “it removes the water where fishes swim”.
In a syndemic and post-caliphate world, re-thinking preventing and countering violent extremism systems is necessary, putting in the centre not just a single kind of extremism and radicalism, but a set of possible extremisms: it must move on from a one-dimensional approach, Jihad-centred, to a multiple approach, centred on complexity, fragmentation, and hybridisation.
Put in the centre the awareness of interrelation between different kind of extremisms: the increase of one kind of extremism tends to increase other forms of extremism.
Behind current extremism and radicalisation processes, there is a demand for identity and subjectivation. Consequently, at socio-political level, people request more political participation and more social integration, particularly young people living in marginal area or with low social status; extremism and radicalisation are often the result of a lack of both. All political actors must be aware on these critical issues.
Underlying data
No data are associated with this article.
