Evidence shows that  higher levels of education do not necessarily ensure  decreased radicalization. In fact, many of those who have engaged in violent extremism successfully completed high school or university. To understand this phenomenon, the Platform, in collaboration with Human Security Collective, The Hague Institute and the International Center for Counter Terrorism (ICCT), organized a workshop to explored the links between education and radicalization as part of the Spark IGNITE! Conference 2016.

Understanding and dissecting education and radicalization

Three are at least two competing approaches to the role of education in preventing radicalization. Does taking a hardline – securitized – approach, where allegedly radical ideas and behaviors are suppressed and diverging opinions are shut out of the conversation increase the risk of violence? Does a developmental approach that encourages critical thinking and exchange of ideas suffice? How can these approaches be balanced to meet the growing challenge of radicalization?

Starting with an overview of some of the dilemmas related to radicalization, Agnese Macaluso, researcher at The Hague Institute for Global Justice, explained that the relationships between education and radicalization is not straightforward. Education creates expectations: degree holders expect jobs and a social status that reflects their qualifications and skills. Where these expectations cannot be met, frustration and a feeling of injustice can give rise to susceptibility to radicalization. As Floor Kroft of RadarAdvies argued, education alone is not enough. Education must go hand-in-hand with the creation of real, sustainable job opportunities.

But what about education itself? How must we adapt education to enhance our ability to root out radicalization? The participants in the workshop identified a number of approaches. Fostering tolerance between religions and ethnicities is crucial in societies where divisions are emerging or established. To this end, Indira Aslanova of Search for Common Ground presented programs undertaken in Kyrgyzstan, where secular elements are included in religious curricula, and vice versa, to promote mutual understanding and appreciation.

In The Netherlands, Heleen Cousijn explained, Diversion is helping teachers and students to discuss taboo topics and to understand that conversation is the best way to challenge the assumptions that underlie marginalization and drive radicalization. From a more global perspective, Dr. Eri Park of University College Roosevelt presented the UCARE curriculum, which provides a toolkit to foster citizenship and social skills by teaching high-school students social competences, building resilience against those factors that can lead to radicalization.

Takeaways from group sessions

After learning about the various approaches to radicalization, the workshop’s participants split into groups, exchanging ideas about the challenges and opportunities in using education as a tool against radicalization. The interactive conversations generated a number of valuable insights.

For example, it was noted that the preference for security-based approaches to deal with radicalization is driven by a need to measure and quantify the success of counter-radicalizations efforts. Governments should not prioritize hard data if this prevents alternative approaches from gaining traction.

Another interesting insight from the group discussion was that while education should accentuate differences between people and continue to teach tolerance and understanding, there should also be a renewed focus on common identities and similarities, to help build a sense of belonging to the same community or group.

The workshop highlighted that being neutral in the face of radicalization is nearly impossible. Personal misgivings about radical thoughts and ideas are difficult to avoid. However, despite these personal reservations about others’ perspectives, marginalization and alienation of those who think differently  in the classroom, and more broadly, should be avoided as much as possible. An open and inclusive conversation where differing opinions are not immediately shut down must be the objective.

Finally, the groups all noted the dangers of framing. Radicalization itself is a term that can lead to exclusion and stigmatization. Furthermore, especially in the West, there has been a substantial focus on radicalization of Muslim youth. It is crucial to keep sight of all types of radicalization – nationalist and left-wing, among others.

Migratory flows within the Northern and Western Africa, as well as between Africa and Europe, have become a top priority for policymakers both in The Netherlands and abroad. On 1 November, the Platform Secretariat organized an Interactive Brainstorm exploring how migration management programs can respond effectively to the realities of migration and human smuggling and trafficking on the ground in Northern Africa and the Sahel region.

In surveying how migratory flows are currently affecting countries like Libya, Mali and Niger, a number of dilemmas for migration management policies are apparent. First, the majority of trans-region migration is intra-regional, rather than directed towards Europe. Second, evidence suggests that investment in border control drives the smuggling industries in the region. Third, criminal smuggling networks, and the proceeds generated through their operations, are sometimes substantially embedded in local and national politics.

What are the drivers of these migration flows? Overarching megatrends, such as climate change and irregular rain, push farmers out of the Sahel and elsewhere towards traditionally richer societies such as Libya. Additionally, violent conflict at home and, particularly, the lack of economic opportunities and a bleak future remain important drivers.

Migration and smuggling as development and empowerment

A key difficulty identified during the meeting was the substantial contribution to local and national economies generated through migrant smuggling. Migration is not only a protection strategy, but also a development strategy. Hotels, car mechanics, bus operators and other commercial businesses earn from migrants passing through. Simultaneously, security forces rely on revenue extracted from migrants at roadblocks and elsewhere to supplement their incomes. These practices are often institutional, rather than incidental: in one city a mayoral decree regulated distribution of profits from migration.

The challenge in managing migration is how to replace the income generated through smuggling. Smuggling is a tool for empowerment and financial gain in Libya, Mali and Niger. Without sustainable alternatives, particularly for youth, smuggling practices will continue, and securitized migration policies may only exacerbate the abuses that migrants suffer.

At a superficial level, actors in the smuggling economy want quick money. At a deeper level, however, smuggling networks are entrenched in the political economies in which they operate. Communities engage in smuggling as livelihood protection to cope in a tumultuous environment and social empowerment, for marginalized communities to reposition themselves in their societies.

Particularly in Libya, the smuggling economy is the glue that holds together much of the fragmented Libyan society. Indeed, violence between armed groups rarely affects the viability and continuity of smuggling routes – business comes first.

Migration and smuggling often provide a degree of stability in the region. The aforementioned smuggling economy provides jobs that prevent youth from being tempted by armed groups and terrorist organizations. Furthermore, for communities that rely on smuggling as an opportunity for empowerment, rooting out this trade could have devastating effects.

Lack of reliable data

The discussion accentuated the difficulty in collecting current and reliable data on almost all aspects of migration. Despite data collection from a number of NGOs, CSOs and others, it is nearly impossible to bring all this data together. There is a need for coordination between these actors to fill knowledge gaps that are crucial to seeing the whole picture in the region.

How can we move forward?

The discussion presented a number of takeaways that can inform how to enhance migration management strategies given the realities for migrants in these areas. First, the security approach to addressing migration, without taking into account the developmental and political aspects of the smuggling economy, will not work. Comprehensive strategies that simultaneously try to limit migratory flows and foster economic opportunities, both for migrants at home and for those living along migratory routes, may help to incrementally reduce the flows.

Second, it is absolutely essential for all actors to understand that stemming migratory flows entirely is nearly impossible. The inability of some actors to accept that migrants will almost always continue to move, particularly from countries where they lack opportunities, hinders the development of both effective and compassionate policies.

Third, there is a need to identify credible actors at all levels and at every points along migratory routes in order to better understand needs in each community and to develop sustainable policies that have supporting and implementing partners on the ground. These partnerships will also help to gain a more nuanced understanding of the issues the migrants, smugglers, bureaucrats, security forces and other actors must deal with. Part of this identification is also the ability to understand the way in which these actors themselves are part and parcel of the smuggling economies in their regions.

Finally, the human rights dimension of all policies and programs aiming to manage migration must be a priority. The abuses migrants suffer on their journeys and in arriving at their destination only serve to encourage onwards migration. Particularly in Libya, violations of human rights mean increased migratory flows to Europe. EU programs must continually assess the human rights impact of the policies adopted.

With the projects under the Reconstruction Tender having concluded, Oxfam Novib and the Platform organized an informal learning event entitled “Great Lakes Reconstruction Tender: Linking and Learning” on 26 September. The informal event offered a venue for participants to share lessons learned from the project under the tender and explore how to integrate these learnings into future projects implementation.

Read more about the projects here.

Takeaways

The fruitful discussion throughout the day provided many interesting ideas for improving future implementation of programs. But what should really be taken into account?

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Taking into account existing programs and frameworks, building on the challenges and opportunities they have encountered, and working complementarily instead of replicating work will save time, money and improve quality across the board.

Local partners should acknowledge and act upon the strength of their own capacities, expanding their presence in their working space and reducing reliance on external parties and organizations. In the same vein, external parties that work with local partners must develop honest and realistic exit strategies that bolster continuity and sustainability of initiatives that have been undertaken.

Flexibility and continual assessment are, as ever, key factors in determining whether or not programs make an impact. Ignoring changing realities, refusing to tweak and adjust along the way and being unable to alter objectives to the situation at hand are all detrimental to effective programming.

Finally, having a relationship with donors that extends past stretching out hands for money can only be beneficial. Involving them more closely with project design fosters a better working relationship, allowing donors to also cooperate better when a crisis situation does occur.

Agri-Business Creation (ABC) in Burundi - SPARK

SPARK’s ABC program in Burundi aimed to generate small-scale sustainable livelihoods for young people in the agricultural sector. Young people in the Great Lakes region are not interested in agriculture because of high intensity work and low profits. Additionally, there is little innovation in the sector and the priorities of the Burundian government, particularly after the 2015 crisis, lie elsewhere. However, SPARK’s project inspired a number of young people by providing them with consistent incomes.

The project generated many valuable insights. The first is that the cooperative was able to leverage its production capabilities to negotiate pricing with multinational it produced for. Additionally, augmenting economic opportunities in this way fills the gaps in a country where the government cannot provide for all its people. The discussion produced two notable recommendations for future planning: to integrate peacebuilding training into economic opportunity programs, so as to combine two parallel efforts; and to evaluate how to move the project’s impact beyond the local level to a more national scale.

Enhancing Local Peace Committees (LPCs) - ZOA & Radboud University Nijmegen

Corita Corbijn (ZOA) and Matthijs van Leeuwen (Radboud University Nijmegen) presented the results of their program, which explored assumptions guiding support for LPCs. The research then produced two toolkits, for practitioners and local stakeholders, visualize programmatic choices in intervention design.

The questions that were asked as part of the research showed that there was a disconnect between what questions the researchers considered important and those that were more important in practice. The larger questions, like the peace versus justice debate, were highly relevant to the LPCs, contrary to what was assumed. Furthermore, participants highlighted the importance of self-critique in interventions. Identifying and questioning assumptions is a crucial part of improving programmatic design.

Building Peace and Promoting Human Security in Post-Conflict Societies - CCR

This South Africa-based Centre for Conflict Resolution project initially aimed to benefit police, military and government institutions, but the focus was later adjusted to prioritize NGOs, CSOs and religious leaders due to conflicts in the Great Lakes region.

The project illustrated the need to focus on training 2 or more participants from specific organizations. Staff turnover means that knowledge of conflict resolution processes learned from trainings disappeared. In order to ensure sustainability, it was necessary to target multiple participants, from both positions of responsibility and the organization’s day-to-day project implementers. This way, CCR could encourage knowledge “cascading” throughout organizations.

Additionally, it was remarked that flexibility and continuous needs assessments are central to ensuring that training remain cognizant of new developments, especially in countries with fragile and ever-changing political environments.

Partners and a Regional Approach to Peacebuilding

Peace Beyond Borders - Oxfam Novib

The Peace Beyond Borders (PBB) project established and implemented through a consortium of partners a Regional Roadmap to Peace, designed from the bottom up by conflict-affected communities. The roadmap intended to address causes and consequences of conflict relating to land and governance.

Working with a consortium of partners enhanced the ability of the project to capitalize on the strengths and effective approaches of specific organizations. The consortium approach improved access to parties from various sectors, using the organizational connections built up by each member to great effect. This also helped to boost the legitimacy of the project as a whole.

The PBB project aimed to involve national, regional and international stakeholders at the design stage of the program. Instead of coopting stakeholders last minute, encouraging involvement at the design stage helps to ensure ownership of the process.

Another important insight from the project: building confidence and capacity of partners organizations and raising their awareness that it is their own space that they act in. What stops organizations like OAP and others from entering and working in this space without the engagement of parties like Oxfam Novib? These organizations must become the masters of their own space.