The Prevent strategy’s theory that once held that ideology drives terrorism, now no longer describes the people it targets. This means Prevent has not evolved – rather, it has undone itself, writes Zara W. Tahir.
Throughout history, the image of ‘the rider and the horse’ has been used as an aphorism for the relationship between emotions (the horse) and the intellect (the rider).
Jonathan Haidt reconceptualizes this image as ‘the rider and the elephant’. Haidt explains in his book, ‘The Righteous Mind’, that when presented with a choice to make, we would like to think that we tally the pros and cons and then make our decision.
But in reality, we have an emotional or intuitive response to the choice, and we create a narrative as a rational post-hoc justification for the decision we have already intuitively accepted.
Thus, instead of the rational rider controlling the unruly intuitive horses, the more appropriate image is of the elephant and the rider. The elephant, much larger, much harder to control, runs the automatic process of orienting the rider in the direction it wishes. The rider, able to chart the path ahead, provides justifications for what the elephant wants to do.
PREVENT, a strand of the UK’s counter-terrrorism strategy, with the objective of ‘preventing’ radicalisation that may lead to terrorism, subscribes to a horse-rider model that has up until very recently claimed that ideology is the rider that drives the horse of ‘perceived grievances’.
However, in reality, it can be argued that the role of ideology in the process of radicalisation is closer to the elephant and the rider, with ideology providing the post-hoc justification for what are perceived as violent beliefs, which are at their root fed by grievances.
What is certain is that the role of ideology as root cause has been justified and negated as the lens of Prevent has shifted and continues to broaden.
The Shifting Emphasis on Ideology
Initially, in the 2006 Home Office report outlining the Prevent strategy [1], it is acknowledged that it is not ideology, but socio-economic or personal circumstances that may make individuals turn to violence in order to “resolve perceived grievances”.
As such: “The first area of action” was “to counter radicalisation [which] lies in addressing structural problems in the UK”.[2]
But by 2011 this attitude had changed. There was almost an exclusive focus on individual, ideological factors, which prompted many academics to note that the report had “shift[ed] blame from government and society towards the individual”.[3]
As a result, the ERG22+ was developed to identify individual behavioural and ideological risk factors that were purported to make an individual vulnerable to radicalisation. It reinforced the focus on ideology, identifying abstract concepts, as risk factors, such as:
“excitement, comradeship & adventure”;
“political, moral motivation”; and
a “need to redress injustice and express grievance”.[4]
This shift problematises otherwise unproblematic behaviour. The subjective nature of vague and notional phrases such as “Excitement, comradeship & adventure”, invites an equally subjective assessment of how that corresponds to the reality of any given individual.
Professor Andrew Silke criticised the ERG22+ for its lack of evidential basis, stating:
“The evidence isn’t there to say ideology is the prime reason why people are becoming terrorists, and yet ideology is the foundation on which the counterterrorism effort is built on… it diverts attention from other causes which play a role in why people become involved in terrorism”[5].
Research into the Provisional IRA concluded similarly that members were driven by the political situation rather than ideology.[6]
Consequently Ireland has never been subject to the Prevent duty and has had a more nuanced understanding of radicalisation rooted in socio-economic and political factors.
Reconsidering Socio-Economic Factors
Inconveniently for those recommending an ideological focus for Prevent, there has been an increase in far-right Prevent referrals that academics have linked to growing socio-economic concerns rather than ideology.
In fact, one 2021 study found a direct correlation between income inequality and increased support for far-right parties.[7]
It is these socio-economic factors that Malcolm X called the ‘sociological dynamite’:
“It takes no one to stir up the sociological dynamite that stems from the unemployment, bad housing, and inferior education already in the ghettoes. This explosively criminal condition has existed for so long, it needs no fuse; it fuses itself; it spontaneously combusts from within itself…”[8]
All this suggests that whilst individuals may have very real grievances, ideology only acts as a narrative, a post-hoc justification for their actions – the rider on the elephant.
This is also in line with the original 2006 position of the Prevent strategy in which socio-economic factors were considered a driving force of radicalisation.
The Dismissive Nature of ‘Perceived Grievances’
Over time the responsibility of the state in creating the grievances at the root of the radicalisation process has been siphoned off, the more radicalisation has been viewed as an individual issue born in a vacuum of isolated ideology rather than a societal issue.
However, communities targeted by Prevent and those who understand its political nature are well aware that as long as the valid concerns of the British public are dismissed as ‘perceived grievances’, all attempts at understanding and preventing terrorism, will remain disingenuous and ineffective.
Prevent was built on the premise that ideology is the rider: identify the dangerous belief, and you can steer the person away from violence. Yet the largest group now referred shows no clear ideology at all.
By its own figures, Prevent is no longer looking for riders. It is intercepting elephants: people whose unmet needs, from mental health care to SEND support, are being recast as security risks.
Prevent’s theory that once held that ideology drives terrorism, now no longer applies to the people it targets. This means Prevent has not evolved – rather, it has undone itself.
Haidt’s lesson was never that the rider is unimportant, but that you cannot change a journey by arguing with the rider. If the state wants to change where the elephant is heading, it must stop policing it and start addressing what drives it.
References
[1] Home Office, ‘Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s Strategy’ (gov.uk, 10 July 2006) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75923240f0b6397f35f710/6888.pdf accessed 1 March 2025 pg 9
[2] ibid., pg 11
[3] Catherine McGlynn & Shaun McDaid, ‘Radicalisation and Higher Education/ Students’ Understanding and Experiences’ [2016] pg 562-563
[5] Open Society Justice Initiative, ‘Eroding Trust/ The UK’s Prevent Counter-Extremism Strategy in Health and Education’ (justice initiative, 17 October 2016) https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/f87bd3ad-50fb-42d0-95a8-54ba85dce818/eroding-trust-20161017_0.pdf accessed 26 February pg 36
[7] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/13501763.2021.1981981?needAccess=true
[8] The Autobiography of Malcolm X p483
Related…
The People’s Review of Prevent (Report)
a
