Considering strategies designed to counter radicalisation Comparative reflections on approaches in the United Kingdom and Belgium

This article focuses on the issue of counter radicalisation strategy, examining the efficacy and the weaknesses of policy initiatives designed to prevent violent extremism. In order to scrutinize various approaches toward combatting the problem of “radicalisation”, we compare and contrast policy and practices in the United Kingdom with counter measures adopted in Belgium. Drawing on a range of examples from these two countries, it is argued that context sensitive and situated multi-agency approaches to counter radicalization are more likely to engage individuals at risk of being drawn into violent extremism and are also less likely to (re)produce iatrogenic effects. Our analysis suggests that, in order to fully understanding what may ostensibly be perceived as individual proclivities toward violence, the role of structural, institutional and environmental factors is significant. We posit that these factors need to be given greater credence in both explanations for “extremism” and processes and practices implemented to reduce the risk of harm.