The EastWest Institute analyzes Christian, Jewish and Muslim violent extremists, and presents policy recommendations to governments and faith leaders.

The role of governments in preventing violent religious extremism is limited.  Religious leaders, faith communities and civil society must do the heavy lifting to counter this threat. 

This is a key conclusion of a new publication from the EastWest Institute (EWI) -  “Countering Violent Extremism: Lessons from the Abrahamic Faiths.” The report, based on research and analysis of Christian, Jewish and Muslim extremism, and the convening of experts with leading persons of faith, deepens the understanding of the risk factors of violent extremism, and offers specific policy recommendations to combat this phenomenon.

Another key conclusion is that religion is not the cause of extremist violence, but is used as a justification for violent acts, which are rooted in political, socio-economic, or cultural grievances.

The report concludes that no single constituency can prevent the threat of such violence: not government, not leading persons of faith, not civil society. Government, which is responsible for our security, may be the least well equipped to take proactive action. The report notes that “any faith plagued by extremists must ‘get its own house in order,’…and that government is especially ill suited for doing so.”  The role that government is best-suited to play is more limited: to protect civilians against attacks, enforce existing laws, address the pertinent risk factors, and leave proactive interventions to the relevant faith communities and civil society.

EWI’s focus is on similarities among religious movements in recruitment and triggers for individuals to take violent action in the name of religion.

The report recommends that all stakeholders reject the Manichean worldview of “good vs. evil” that polarizes debate.  More specifically:

Recommendations for Policymakers:

· Take a rule of law approach
Governments exist to make and enforce laws and punish perpetrators without bias. They should not enforce the law differently based on the faith of the perpetrators.

· Don’t militarize conflict
Militarizing the conflict exacerbates feelings of alienation and opposition more than it ensures security.  Without widespread security crises, there is little reason why the military should be engaged in domestic law enforcement purposes.

· Be consistent
To create the space for leading persons of faith and civil society to positively intervene to counter violent extremism and radicalism, governments must be consistent in order to avoid exacerbating feelings of injustice or promoting the tacit endorsement of any extremist worldview.

Recommendations for Leading Persons of Faith:

· Work within the faith
To date the emphasis in dialogue has been on inter-faith efforts; EWI proposes a widespread program of intra-faith dialogue.  EWI has found that the most significant cleavage is not among different religions but between moderates and radicals of the same faiths.

· Improve religious literacy
Young people are searching for explanations of their worlds.  Too often in isolated religious communities, extremists meet the young and radicalize them. When a young person has little understanding of the true tenets of his or her faith, he or she is particularly vulnerable to recruitment.

· Mobilize the moderates
In the words of one of the clerics who presented at EWI’s conference, “the most common response to religious violence by moderate religious leaders is to be quiet.”  The moderates must confront the reasons for this hesitation for cohesion in their communities.

Recommendations for Civil Society:

· A framework for discussion and action
Extremist movements are well networked and civil society must respond in kind. EWI therefore recommends collaboration among civil society organizations already dedicating resources to countering violent extremism.

· A framework for mediation and intervention
Community and faith organizations can and should act as intermediaries between communities and governments when tensions arise.  The potential strengths of civil society are neutrality, balance and objectivity, and the ability to pitch a big tent.