Let the Big Society fight terrorism

On this, the fifth anniversary of the London bombings, the Centre for Social Cohesion has released a "telephone directory" of Islamist terrorists convicted in the UK. The director, Douglas Murray, has used it to claim the government has failed to learn the lessons of 7/7, particularly in respect of its Prevent strategy . He argues that Prevent does not address the real problem – Islamism. Murray is right to criticise Prevent, but his solution – fight all Islamism, not just the violent type – would make matters worse. Murray's intervention comes at a critical time as the coalition government is currently reviewing its Prevent work, with a decision expected in the autumn. Prevent aims to stop terrorism before it emerges by empowering Muslim communities to fight radicalisation and "drain the swamp" of potential recruits. What happens here transcends counterterrorism, illuminating the perennial Liberal/Conservative tension: how to promote tolerance, equality and human rights while simultaneously rolling back the state. Back in 2005 Demos supported Prevent , on the basis that the root causes of terrorism needed to be tackled. We were wrong. True, there has been no successful terrorist plot in the UK since 7/7, but this is largely down to the skill of our policing and security services and al-Qaida's fragmentation. Since its inception, Prevent has been subject to persistent concerns about its effectiveness, culminating in a critical House of Commons select committee report in March, which recommended major reform. It is odd that Murray argues that the government refuses to accept that Islamic terrorism is the main threat to the country, given that Prevent's focus on Muslims has been a persistent cause of complaint. There is no one path to terrorism nor, despite Murray's claims, a typical terrorist profile, Prevent has already come to cover a wide range of activities, some of which have little to do with terrorism, such as awareness-raising DVDs or developing faith in the school curriculum. As last week's furore surrounding possible cuts to the counterterrorism budget demonstrated, this is not affordable. Rather than extend Prevent to tackle all types of Islamism, as Murray would have, there is a more effective approach: abolish Prevent entirely and merge it into plans to create the Big Society. Unfairly labelled as vacuous by bitter cynics and naysayers, if the Big Society results in people playing a meaningful and active role in their neighbourhoods and communities, it will also help prevent extremism and terrorism. As I've argued here and here , one of the reasons young British Muslims join extreme or terrorist groups is to find meaning in their lives, a desire to be part of a movement, a testosterone-fuelled need to fight for something, however odious. The idea of being part of an international jihadist movement can be exhilarating. Many young Muslims (about as far as Murray's or anyone else's terrorist profiling takes us) and young men in general, always have been and always will be radical, dissenting and angry. New research is starting to suggest that political and social activism is an important outlet for that youthful energy. Our research found that "violent" extremists were less likely to have taken part in civic engagement and political protest than peaceful extremists. We also found a number of young Muslims being diverted from violent activity when provided with peaceful, meaningful alternatives. Unpublished research by the Change Institute shows that membership of one radical Islamist group in the UK went into decline from 2002 as young Muslims joined the anti-war movement in large numbers and found an outlet for their frustration. New research from the US is finding the same thing – that political and social protest and activism acts as a safety valve. Indeed, Murray's own findings seem to support this – a minority of convicted terrorists were part of two extremist organisations, both of which are already proscribed anyway. The Big Society can tackle terrorism indirectly as effectively as any other attempt at prevention, if it does three things. First, to include schemes that allow young British Muslims to volunteer in the countries they are most concerned about, such as Palestine. It would be a kind of UK peace corps. Second, a sustained effort to ensure that young Muslims have opportunities to play a more meaningful role in their local communities. Mosques, for example, remain too much in the control of community elders . Political activism – protests and associations – should be encouraged and welcomed even if radical. Third, to push forward with plans for a national citizens service , making sure young Muslims from segregated or disadvantaged communities have the chance to take part. Prevent, with its focus on stopping terrorism, too often alienated the very people it was trying to bring onside. Trying to make it tackle all type of extremism, which would be impossible anyway, would make that worse. In its place, the Big Society, a citizen-led collective action that is independent of government, would enjoy more support. It if succeeds in developing what the philosopher Michael Sandel calls "a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a moral bind with the community whose fate is at stake", there will be little need for Prevent, because this bind is precisely what terrorists lack.