Terrorism is declining, but the fear of extremism is on the rise. Why is this?
Inaugural lecture image: ANP
Just a few years ago, jihadist terrorism was seen as Europe’s most pressing threat. Today, we are facing hybrid warfare and extremist groups that are undermining our safety from within. Bart Schuurman, Professor of Terrorism and Political Violence, calls for a different kind of research.
You’ll give your inaugural lecture on 6 October. In the text, you write: ‘Funnily enough, we’re increasingly concerned about extremism and polarisation when the terrorism we fear is actually decreasing.’ What’s going on?
‘Part of the explanation is that radicalised people weren’t born yesterday. They know that committing terrorism or violence leads to one of two outcomes: life in prison or death. We often imagine terrorists as reckless fanatics, but that’s rarely the case. On top of that, Western counterterrorism efforts have become more effective over time.
‘Extremists, and especially on the far right, have also realised there are other ways to achieve their goals. Look at the success of Germany’s AfD, despite being labelled by the country’s domestic intelligence agency as extremist and a threat to democracy.
‘A hardened far-right extremist might view the AfD or extreme-right parties as too moderate, but that shows how radical-right ideas are becoming increasingly normalised. Electoral success also opens the door for right-wing extremists to infiltrate democratic institutions or even dismantle them from within.’
In your inaugural lecture, you also write: ‘One of the most concerning examples of the disruptive influence of extremist ideas is what is happening before our very eyes in the US.’ Why is that?
‘When a president uses their position to harm democracy, that is a form of extremism. After losing to Biden in the 2020 elections, Trump simply denied the result. He has raised lying to an art form – and it has worked time and again. He even attempted a kind of coup when he urged people to go to the Capitol. Now he’s deploying American troops to restore order in cities that happen to be Democrat controlled. Using the military against political opponents is a deeply troubling sign for any democracy. And that’s without even touching on his foreign policy ambitions: he wants to make Canada the 51st state, and take control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. Of course, Trump’s not acting alone. I think a lot is wrong with American democracy.’
You also write: ‘The relative “luxury” of a violent threat coming mainly from non-state actors has since been overshadowed by mounting interstate competition with China, Iran and especially Russia’. Could you explain?
‘What I mean is that we were living in a kind of “luxury” where jihadist terrorism was seen as our main security problem. That’s now being overshadowed by the return – and perhaps it had never gone away – of interstate rivalry and war. Our main concern should be about what is happening in Ukraine and what tricks Putin still has up his sleeve.’
In that context, you conduct research into hybrid threats: covert and illegal operations designed to create plausible deniability, such as election interference, sabotage and assassinations. What is your focus?
‘My colleagues and I have created an overview of Russian hybrid warfare targeting Europe. The number of incidents has surged in the past three years. It’s vital that politicians and the public understand the scale of this and where it's heading. I hope it will help people face the facts. What’s happening in Ukraine affects us directly. Russia is actively trying to destabilise our security and democracy.
‘In one of my follow-up studies, I want to investigate who is actually carrying out the Russian hybrid activities. While shady security services are often behind these, the people carrying them out are often recruited via Telegram for just a few hundred euros. They risk long prison sentences. So who are these people who are willing to commit what amounts to treason for such little reward?’
When discussing research into extremism, you call for more attention to group dynamics and the broader social and political context. Why is that important?
‘For a long time, research focused on individuals. It’s easy to say that someone who resorts to violence or breaks norms has something wrong with them: they must have had a traumatic childhood or have mental health problems. I’m not dismissing those explanations, but there are other influences at play.
‘Take Mohammed B., who murdered Theo van Gogh. Studies of him as an individual have identified several risk factors for his behaviour. But many of these were also present in other members of his group [the Hofstad Group, Ed.] who didn’t commit violence. That forces us to look beyond the individual.
‘If we don’t, we won’t be able to answer key questions. Why, for example, is the American radical right far more violent than its European counterpart? We need to understand what conditions allow extreme ideas to escalate into extreme violence. Only then can we develop policies that create effective barriers. We need to be able to answer the question: When do extremist ideas not lead to terrorism?’