Returning from the extreme : rehabilitation of former violent extremists : a study into the experience of exit

(1)

1

Graduate School of Social Sciences

MSc. Conflict Resolution and Governance

Master Thesis Political Science

Returning from the Extreme: Rehabilitation of

Former Violent Extremists

A study into the experience of exit

Name: Ivana Gabalova

Student Identification no.: 11083883

Supervisor: Dr. Martijn Dekker Second Reader: Dr. Floris Vermeulen Date of Submission: June 24th₂₀₁₆

(2)

2

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to thank the people I interviewed, who shared their insights into experiences only they had, who trusted me with their stories, who opened up to me about difficult moments and challenges they overcame and enlightened me with their wisdom. I absolutely could not have written this research without you and I am grateful for your openness and willingness to allow others to learn from your experience, to hopefully make things easier for those who come after you.

I would also like to thank Daniel Koehler and Robert Orell for their valuable expertise on the subject and contributions to this paper through provided expert interviews.

I am grateful to my supervisor Dr. Martijn Decker for his guidance, support and understanding throughout this process, for providing me clarity and structure and reassurance when I was lost.

And I cannot leave without mention my partner, without whose emotional and practical support I could not have completed this research.

The other people I would like to thank are too many to name, but include everyone who has given me advice, shared resources with me, helped put me in touch with my

respondents and helped me reflect on the topic.

(3)

3

Abstract

Despite a growing body of literature on radicalisation and deradicalisation, complemented by policies and strategy, little attention is paid to what happens to an individual after they have deradicalised. More research is needed on their reintegration into society. To better understand the experience of former extremists’ transition back into society, eight narrative interviews with former members of violent extremist movements, namely Islamist and far-right groups, were conducted. Through them this paper explores the needs of formers towards successful rehabilitation and the challenges they face in this process. Interpretations draw on theories of social identity as well as insights from offender rehabilitation. Key findings that emerged from this study are a need for practical support to people leaving extremist groups including physical protection to reduce repercussions of exit, as well as social support to overcome the social vacuum ‘formers’ find themselves in and to facilitate the reconstruction of both a personal and multiple social identities independent of the extremist ideology. Prisons and exit programs can play a key role in this process. This study argues that a major facilitating factor for reintegration is social acceptance.

Key Words: rehabilitation, violent extremism, exit, social identity,

(4)

4

6.1.6 Stigma ... 51 6.1.7 Psychological issues ... 53 6.2 What helped? ... 55 6.2.1 Change of environment ... 55 6.2.2 Support group ... 56 6.2.3 Prison ... 59 6.2.4 Family? ... 65 7. Conclusion ... 68 8. Discussion... 70 8.1 Is deradicalisation possible? ... 73 8.2 Exit programs ... 78 9. Bibliography ... 82

(6)

6

1. Introduction

With thousands of European citizens having travelled to fight in Syria on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the numbers growing (The Guardian 2015), a surge of terrorist attacks worldwide, arrivals of large numbers of asylum seekers from the Middle-East to Europe and fear voiced by politicians and media of infiltration in these groups by radicals, radicalisation and deradicalisation has been a major concern politically and academically in recent years (Al Raffie 2013; Bjorgo 2011; Bowen 2016; Horgan 2010; Marsden 2015a). We have seen a rise in both Islamist

radicalism and far-right extremism, which has been growing steadily for decades, but is peaking in response to aforementioned realities (Ramalingam 2014), reflected in cases of racially motivated physical attacks, arson attacks on asylum seeker centres (Ahlander & Goarant 2015) as well as threats to Jewish institutions. This all leads to the rise in need of prevention, counter-radicalisation and rehabilitation strategies and deeper understanding of violent extremism. Of particular interest to this paper however, is the life after

extremism. Assuming that most extremists at some point withdraw from this life of violence, with a rise in radicalisation, we are also to expect large numbers of people wishing to leave behind the life of violent extremism and mainstream society has to make sure that there is a space for them in it when they are ready to reclaim it.

While much research has been done on the causes of radicalization and best practices of deradicalisation, questions remain about what happens to the individual once they elect to abandon their radical philosophy (Horgan 2008; Marsden 2015a; Monahan 2012). The first step in combating violent extremism is of course prevention and

intervention. But the battle isn’t won when the extremist no longer wants to lead the path of violence. The next step is for them to re-engage with society and reintegrate into communities. There are however multiple obstacles to this process, coming from the environment they are leaving, the one they are trying to enter, as well as from within. Former members of violent extremist movements may have criminal records; they may be isolated from their families and friends who either remain in these radical movements, or whom they grew apart from as a result of their radical ideologies; they may also be

(7)

7 traumatized by things they witnessed or committed, they may be struggling with remorse. These are just a fraction of the challenges former violent extremists may be experiencing during the transition (Barrelle 2014).

Since literature on radicalisation centres the radicalisation process around identity construction (Al Raffie 2013:75; Wiktorowicz 2005; Barrelle 2014), this research

proposal argues that identity construction is also a crucial element in the deradicalisation and rehabilitation process; specifically that of their social identity. This paper investigates what factors facilitate and which inhibit the rehabilitation of former extremists and what role their social identity plays in the process. It also draws on theories of rehabilitation derived from research on offender rehabilitation, to complement the currently scarce knowledge on rehabilitation of violent extremists.

“One of the main challenges in reintegrating violent extremists is that little evidence exists concerning what does and does not work. No tried and tested theory describing what needs to be done to ensure de-radicalization or successful re-entry into society currently exists, and very few programs have been evaluated” (Veldhuis 2015: 3).

What this research therefore aims to do is not to evaluate current efforts, or build guidelines based on good practice, but to complement the existing knowledge from experts, governments and NGOs, with insights from formers themselves; to gain a deeper understanding of the experience from the perspective of the formers themselves and build on their own assessment of their needs in this vulnerable period.

(8)

8

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Definition of Concepts

Consensus has not yet been reached in the field regarding terminology surrounding violent extremism, whether we are speaking about extremism, radicalisation, deradicalisation or rehabilitation. Particularly deradicalisation and rehabilitation are frequently (and incorrectly) used synonymously, misconstruing both the meaning and purpose of those two enterprises. Some further terms associated with deradicalisation are “Disengagement, De-radicalization, Demobilization, Dialogue, Deprogramming,

Rehabilitation, Reintegration, Reconciliation, Reincorporation, Reformation, Counter-radicalization, and Prevention” (Horgan & Braddock 2011: 163). Because the distinction between these terms and between what practices aiming at deradicalisation and

rehabilitation aim to achieve are crucial in this research, we will start by establishing the understanding of these concepts within this paper.

2.1.1 Extremism

When it comes to concepts like extremism, or even more so applied to individuals – i.e. extremist, terrorist, fundamentalist, radical and so on, labelling can have a very negative effect and long-lasting impact. All of these terms can also have a political and normative overtone, establishing what beliefs one is allowed to hold and whose concerns are valid. By labelling someone an extremist, we delegitimise their views and them as a person, stigmatise them and position them out of society (in definition someone is on the extreme end of the spectrum). It is therefore important to clarify that when we speak of extremism in this paper, it is always in reference to violent extremism. In other words, we mean not merely the “active promotion of views or measures which are not in line with culturally accepted behavioural or ideological norms” (Rom 2013: 148), which could easily absorb any unconventional world views, but specifically adhering to the use of violence, such as the adoption of means to political ends advocating racial, national, ethnic or religious supremacy with disregard for the life, liberty and human rights of others (Scruton 2007;

(9)

9 RAN P&P n.d.:1). Similarly, an extremist is understood to be someone who uses or advocates violence in order to bring about a fundamental change in social order, i.e. “individuals who support or commit ideologically-motivated violence to further political goals” (Department of Homeland Security 2015). The term extremist is mostly perceived as exonymic and pejorative. Receiving the label of an extremist can therefore have a detrimental effect in the rehabilitation process, by making the labelled individual feel unwelcome in society and suffer consequences of stigmatisation, as will be discussed later in the paper. This study therefore refrains from referring to individuals within the research as extremists, but rather as former members or supporters of violent extremist movements/ groups/ ideologies, or simply as ‘formers’. Especially when discussing rehabilitation, it is important to remember that these people are more than the labels we put on them and that primarily they are human. When the term is used, it is primarily to adhere to terminology used in theories that are cited and/or for lack of better alternatives.

2.1.2 Radicalisation

Even though radicalisation is not the subject of this research, inevitably when studying the exit from violent extremist groups and subsequent rehabilitation, it is important to see the bigger picture and understand why people adopt these views in the first place.

Radicalisation is therefore used throughout the study to define the process of “embracing opinions, views and ideas which could lead to acts of terrorism” (Change Institute 2008: 13), whereby “the reasons behind this process can be ideological, political, religious, social, economic and/or personal” (RAN P&P n.d.:1).

2.1.3 Disengagement, Deradicalisation, Rehabilitation1

There are many interpretations as to what deradicalisation entails and disagreement on whether this simply means a discontinuation of violent activities, rejection of violence as

1_{Elements of the paragraph on terminology have been previously submitted by the author in an assignment}

paper “Returning from the extreme: The role of social identity in the rehabilitation of former extremists” for an elective course on Analysing identity based conflict (Gabalova 2016: 7).

(10)

10 a means to effect social change (Rabasa 2010) while continuing to uphold the same views, or the development of a more balanced worldview and identity and the

relinquishment of a black-and-white, us vs. them narrative. Furthermore, the term is often used synonymously with disengagement or rehabilitation. To clarify the differences, this paper makes a distinction between the use of each of these terms. When referring to disengagement, there is a difference between ‘behavioural disengagement’, indicating withdrawal from physical participation in violent activities or activities promoting or leading to violence; and ‘psychological disengagement’, implying a change in beliefs (Horgan 2009). In using the term deradicalisation, this paper is referring to psychological disengagement – i.e. disengagement with views embracing ideologically-motivated violence, since behavioural disengagement may be involuntary, for example if one is incarcerated, their passport confiscated, their activities monitored with a threat of arrest in case of breaching the law or their behaviour in any other way inhibited. Such

disengagement tends to be temporary and does not signify a change in values (Braw 2014). One could therefore argue that the first step is behavioural disengagement, followed by psychological disengagement, i.e. deradicalisation, upon which commences the journey towards rehabilitation. Some academics, such as Horgan, use the term

rehabilitation as synonymous to deradicalisation, implying the absence of recidivism into terrorist activity (Horgan & Braddock 2010). This paper understands rehabilitation to mean more than just not relapsing into violent extremist activity. The use of the term rehabilitation here entails reintegration into society - as is commonly used with offenders - through acquiring employment or education, access to housing, participating in social networks / everyday social interaction; in other words, being a contributing member of society (Politics 2012). In exploring how former supporters of violent extremist

ideologies experience the transition from their extremist groups into society, the focus of this research will be on the period from psychological disengagement to assumed

rehabilitation, as defined above. It is important to note that this research aims to examine the needs of formers when and if they themselves choose to reintegrate into society. While it could be argued that deradicalisation and rehabilitation go hand in hand and many programs treat them as processes that happen in parallel, it is important to make the distinction because deradicalisation can be very normative – it is the establishment that

(11)

11 decides what is radical and what the desired state of mind and behaviour should be. Theories of deradicalisation, how and whether it works, will therefore not be elaborated further on, or its effectiveness in any way assessed, as it is not the focus of this research. Since most deradicalisation programs do not make this distinction however, the tools they use could facilitate the process of rehabilitation, such as vocational training, religious counselling, psychological counselling, family counselling or creative art therapy, as suggested by Koehler (Boghani 2016). These methods will be elaborated on in the next chapter on theories of rehabilitation, where they are explained using practice from offender rehabilitation.

2.2 Theory

2.2.1 Rehabilitation Theory

While there is limited research on the rehabilitation of extremists, (Veldhuis 2015; Boghani 2016; van der Valk & Wagenaar 2010), many insights from theories on offender rehabilitation are applicable also to extremists. On one hand, many extremists have over their careers acquired criminal records for their ideologically-motivated activities, so dealing with time spent in prison, having a criminal record, and the stigma of

incarceration are actually one of the many things they struggle with during their journey towards reintegration. On the other hand, as has been pointed out by Veldhuis (2012), there are also many similarities between the obstacles faced by these two groups, so while there is a need to account for the specificity of the needs of former extremists, we can also look at some of the lessons learned from the much longer history of offender rehabilitation. As the theories on rehabilitation have largely shifted over the years, it is also important to establish what we mean by “rehabilitation”, when we talk about rehabilitating violent extremists.

“The term ‘rehabilitation’ itself simply means the process of helping a person to readapt to society or to restore someone to a former position or rank” (Campbell 2005: 831). It is most often used in relation to physical rehabilitation, for example after an

(12)

12 accident, to restore previous abilities, or “as means to reform prisoners during their

sentence” (Campbell 2005: 831). The use of the term rehabilitation can sometimes be seen as problematic in relation to prisoners – or extremists, for that matter - because it implies there is something wrong with them in the first place and the methods historically used to ‘reform’ them. Depending on how the purpose of prisons is defined, rehabilitation can also be used as a condition for the prisoner’s release, which can cause double

punishment of the offenders. Applying this to the context of extremism, you could compare that to setting deradicalisation as a precondition to release. However, the understanding of rehabilitation has significantly grown over the years. Rotman (1990) as well as Campbell (2005) describe the evolution of prisoner rehabilitation in four

historical phases, starting with the 19th century penitentiary as a religious form of purification through reflection on sins to achieve redemption. In the early 20th century this was replaced by a medical model aiming to ‘cure’ the prisoner’s psychological or biological ‘defects’ as assumed causes of their criminal behaviour. The second half of the 20th century brought yet another approach, seeing deviance not as an internal flaw, but a result of social learning, remedy to which was re-education. This could consist of education or vocational training, as well as parenting classes, training in job skills and coping abilities, or substance abuse treatment. In the 1980s, the focus shifted from serving the offender within rehabilitation programs, to serving the interests of the law-abiding public who needs to be protected from crime, rendering the offender themselves an object, rather than a subject. Such approaches can be seen even in more recent research, such as Veldhuis's (2012: 2) Policy Questions and Lessons Learned on violent extremist offenders:

“Here, rehabilitation is seen as a purposeful, planned intervention, which aims to change characteristics of the offender (attitudes, cognitive skills and processes, personality or mental health, and social, educational or vocational skills) that are believed to be the cause of the individual’s criminal behaviour, with the intention to reduce the chance that the individual will re‐offend. Moreover, reintegration is understood as a safe transition to the community, by which the individual proceeds to live a

(13)

13 law‐abiding life following his or her release and acquires attitudes and

behaviours that generally lead to productive functioning in society“.

The understanding of rehabilitation within the context of this study rejects any psychological coercion for people to change, or the assumption that there is something wrong with them in the first place. That is also why focus is not on deradicalisation – an effort to change somebody's way of thinking, primarily with a utilitarian intention of protecting society from the ‘extremist’s’ radical beliefs and resulting criminal behaviour. Rather, the emphasis of rehabilitation here is on the reintegration of those who

themselves choose to make a change in their lives, focusing on their needs and creating an environment where there is a place for them, rather than placing demands. Contrary to any of the models described above, formers are seen as neither a product of society, their environment and circumstances, nor a victim of psychological or physiological deficits that somehow needs to be fixed. Nor is there an imposition of a moral obligation to repent, as was intended by early rehabilitation efforts of the penitentiary. Emphasis of this study is on the social opportunities of formers and their acceptance into mainstream society in every respect – opportunities for their self-realisation, building of social networks, acquiring employment, securing their basic needs and life without labels and stigma. Much like in prisoner rehabilitation theories desistance is a central objective of rehabilitation (McNeill 2012), successful rehabilitation of former extremists must also avoid relapse into extremism, or other forms of socially marginalised and pathological behaviour like crime, drug abuse or joining a cult, still remaining outside the mainstream. Most importantly, rehabilitation as referred to in this study recognises “the need to treat people as active subjects in their own rehabilitation (and not simply as the passive objects of expert intervention)” (McNeill 2012: 9). Hence the focus in this research is on the formers' own experiences and their own subjective interpretations of events, actors, needs and obstacles during the transition period, allowing them to define their rehabilitation and factors involved. This also implies that we are not necessarily looking at rehabilitative interventions, but also natural, self-accomplished rehabilitation.

It is also very important that we see rehabilitation not as merely the journey of the individual, but as a societal process. Reintegration requires an individualised, holistic

(14)

14 approach, focusing on interpersonal relations and the environment of former radicals. We cannot focus on rehabilitation alone, ignoring the context into which someone is being reintegrated. Aside from the willingness of the formers to renounce extremism, the

willingness of society to allow them to reintegrate on a personally meaningful level is key (Marsden 2015a).

“Rehabilitation, therefore, is not just about sorting out the individual’s readiness for or fitness for reintegration; it is as much about rebuilding the social relationships without which reintegration is impossible. Any would-be supporter of rehabilitation has to do more than try to sort out

‘offenders’; s/he needs to mediate relationships between people trying to change and the communities in which change is impeded or impelled; s/he also has to mediate the role and limits of the state itself in the process (McNeill 2012: 16).”

Acceptance by society is also strongly linked to stigma associated with criminal offence, as well as with affiliation to extremist ideologies. It is essential to remove these exclusionary effects which cause both a social toll and restrict employment opportunities, in an effort to nurture rehabilitation. “No amount of supporting offenders to change themselves can be sufficient to the tasks and challenges of rehabilitation and desistance, if legal and practical barriers to reintegration are left in place” (McNeill 2012: 18).

In terms of understanding what could be of assistance in the rehabilitation of former extremists, we can look at elements identified in research by the UK Ministry of Justice on transforming rehabilitation to reduce reoffending of criminal offenders. Their tactics include addressing drug and alcohol misuse, accommodation and employment needs, mental health problems, developing and enhancing family relationships, addressing negative peer relationships, restorative justice programs and mentoring (Ministry of Justice 2013). This corresponds to the same strategies employed by many deradicalisation and rehabilitation programs, as elaborated on in the literature review section.

(15)

15

2.2.2 Social Identity Theory

Lessons learned from offender rehabilitation can help us determine some of the practical needs of former violent extremists during their transition into mainstream society and tools that can be used to facilitate the process. There is however a difference between the pathology of ‘regular’ offenders and the motivations and values of violent extremists. In very simplistic terms, crimes are generally committed due to perceived need or street culture revolving around “the enjoyment of good times with minimal concern for obligations and commitments” (Jacobs & Wright 1999: 155) and are stimulated by “substance misuse problems, pro-criminal attitudes, difficult family backgrounds including experience of childhood abuse or time spent in care, unemployment and

financial problems, homelessness and mental health problems” (Ministry of Justice 2013: 3). Extremist violence on the other hand tends to be ideologically motivated in the belief that it is the right thing to do and is justified under the cause (Altier et al. 2014: 652). Violent extremists, even those incarcerated, do not perceive themselves as criminals (Rupali 2013: 52). To better understand the psychology of a violent extremist and thus be able to place their needs during rehabilitation in context, it is useful to look at the causes of their radicalisation: what is it that leads one to adopt this identity and embrace views that justify violence? What is specific about the psychology of violent extremists?2

Literature on radicalisation centres the radicalisation process around identity construction (Al Raffie 2013: 75). Specifically social identity is a relevant concept when looking at violent extremism or rehabilitation because both position the individual against society. If we look at some of the impulses that push individuals towards radicalisation, these factors may include feelings of racial and religious or economic discrimination (Barrelle 2014: 5), social and/or cultural isolation, including questioning one’s identity and either uncertainty of belonging within a Western culture (in the case of Islamist radicalisation) or feeling that their culture is under threat from out-groups (right-wing extremism) (Saltman & Smith 2015:9). All of these motives deal with one’s social

identities; their feeling of belonging, or its lack of, to a certain social group and animosity

2_{The following section on social identity has been previously submitted by the author in an assignment}

paper “Returning from the extreme: The role of social identity in the rehabilitation of former extremists” for an elective course on Analysing identity based conflict (Gabalova 2016: 8-9).

(16)

16 from the outgroup. Wiktorowicz perceives radicalisation as a “search for identity as a response to a personal crisis, of which a double sense of non-belonging could be one” (Wiktorowicz 2005). The allure of the extremist group lies in its “ability to provide the radical-to-be with a distinctive identity”. It “imbues the radical with a sense of moral and spiritual superiority, setting him/her aside from the rest of society. In this sense, the new radical successfully joins an imaginary elite social group, and the second task in the recruiting radical’s handbook is the slow and steady demonization of the society that exists outside the group” (Al Raffie 2013: 67-68).

If this is true for radicalisation, identity construction must be equally crucial in the reverse process of deradicalisation. Applying Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory, people define themselves based on their group membership and derive positive self-esteem, as well as a sense of belonging to the social world from their group identity (Tajfel 1974). The salient group identity in any given context also determines how we think and behave, since we feel and act through the lens of said social group membership, rather than through our own unique perspective (Tajfel & Turner 1986). This feeling of belonging to a certain group causes us to incorporate the particular social identity into our sense of self. Generally we are composed of multiple social identities side by side, one of which may become more prominent in one social context, another in a different one. When one radicalises however, the social identity related to their violent extremist ideology tends to become the dominant one in all situations, which makes the extremist lose all other social reference points (Barrelle 2014: 5). When we later look at the factors contributing to the rehabilitation of former radicals, we will notice the emergence of other social identities is both a marker of deradicalisation and a crucial factor in aiding reintegration and

preventing recidivism by anchoring one’s self-identification outside the extremist group. Identity construction in this case is visible in the divide between the extremist movement and the mainstream society, which both deem each other incompatible with one another. A successful reintegration into society therefore implies not only

transitioning from the in-group of the extremist group to that of the mainstream society, but also countering this binary vision of society and forming a balanced, pro-social, a less categorical and more inclusive identity (Marsden 2015a: 159). It is also important that in their new identity, former extremists do not perceive themselves merely as ‘formers’, but

(17)

17 also see themselves outside this label, identifying themselves with for example their profession, their hobbies, their characteristics, etc. This may involve demonstrating that there is no contradiction in holding different identities, for example, being British and being Muslim, or being a patriot and living in a pluralistic society (Marsden 2015a).

In this line of reasoning, a definition of deradicalisation as a process of reversing one’s ideology, rejecting violent methods and becoming more accepting of a pluralist society can be interpreted in social identity terms as ceasing to identify with the extreme group, “increased acceptance (or decreased rejection) of what were formerly hated out-groups, and (a shift) towards the individual (personal) end of the interpersonal interaction continuum, with a reconsideration of who is afforded membership of the ‘human identity’ group” – i.e. switching back from the social group perspective to one’s individual vision of the world (Barrelle 2014: 11-12).

An understanding of the reintegration process as a transformation of one’s social identities will allow us to interpret findings in light of not only the psychological and individual process of the former, but as an interaction between the former and the society they are reintegrating to, suggesting a role for society to play and increasing the social significance of this research.

2.3 Lessons learned from practice

To complement the theoretical perspectives on rehabilitation of ‘formers’, it is also useful to look at some of the practices that are already being implemented to assist those leaving extremist movements in reintegrating into mainstream society. Looking at strategies of European exit programs, studies evaluating rehabilitation efforts, as well as research involving interviews with formers about their experiences of disengagement with violent extremism, a number of factors seem to arise as conductive to the rehabilitation process. The prevalent aids to rehabilitation seem to be a social network outside the extremist group, positive family relationships, development of critical thinking skills, construction of multiple social identities and security and assurance. The following literature review

(18)

18 explains the utility of these elements from a social identity perspective, as well as in relation to rehabilitation theory. While there is a myriad of deradicalisation programs throughout Europe, often mandatorily imposed on anyone suspected of radicalisation (Whitehead 2014), there is only a handful of established programs focused not on forcefully changing one’s mind-set, but on facilitating reintegration for those wishing to leave the extremist scene. These programs consist of EXIT in Norway, Sweden and Germany and the Violence Prevention Network (Germany), which all assist individuals leaving the far-right; and Hayat (Germany), the Aarhus model (Denmark) and Center for the Prevention of Sectarian Trends Linked to Islam (France), which focus on members of radical Islamist groups. Insights from prison rehabilitation programs for violent extremist offenders have also been included in this overview. Although this research is not looking specifically at facilitated rehabilitation since only a fraction of those trying to leave extremist groups will do so with the help of a program (Barrelle 2014: 1), approaches of these organisations could point at the needs of formers during their rehabilitation process based on their experience.3

2.3.1 Social connections outside of radical in-group

Barrelle, who conducted 22 interviews with former Islamist extremists, argues that “from a social identity perspective the programs with apparent success are those that provide opportunities for detainees to interact with out-group members in a way that dislocates expectations, reduces threat, equalizes status and increases options for social mobility – the necessary conditions for harmonious intergroup relations” (Barrelle 2014: 12). This emphasises the need to reduce the barrier between the in-group and the out-group, to enable the former extremist to move between different social identities. A social identity perspective sees the significance of social connections as more than just the practical support and moral encouragement provided by a supportive social network promoting an abiding citizen lifestyle. More importantly a connection with a social network outside their extremist group provides them with an alternative group to identify with and a sense

3_{The following section on social identity has been previously submitted by the author in an assignment}

paper “Returning from the extreme: The role of social identity in the rehabilitation of former extremists” for an elective course on Analysing identity based conflict (Gabalova 2016: 10-12).

(19)

19 of inclusion outside their radical hub. That prevents them from reverting to their old group for lack of other options to satiate their need to belong, driven by self-conceptual uncertainty (Barelle 2014: 14; Hogg 2010). Likewise Marsden identifies development of positive social networks and disengagement from negative ones as one of key factors encouraging desistance. A different peer group provides the former extremist with a more adaptive social context and a more diverse set of social identities (Marsden 2015a: 150, 156). Resocialisation is a component of most exit programs, where they are encouraged to develop social networks outside of the radical group as well as reviving old friendships (Chowdhury Fink & Hearne, 2008: 5).

2.3.2 Family Relationships

Family relationships can both improve and worsen the likelihood of rehabilitation. Family bonds are very strong, so if family members of the deradicalising individual remain loyal to a fundamentalist ideology, it will be even more difficult for them to accept alternative social identities, since their social context among their social network as well as at home will salience the identity pertaining to the extremist group. On the other hand, the feeling of kinship towards their family who does not share their beliefs may be a strong aid in the rehabilitation process, providing them with a sense of meaning and appreciation outside the extremist movement (Marsden 2015a: 156). Rebuilding relationships with families is a key component of the Center for the Prevention of Sectarian Trends Linked to Islam, where not only the clients, but also their families receive the support of professionals (Symons 2016). Likewise the Norwegian Exit group has had significant success in utilising parents to remove their children from extremist environments, as well as creating a network of parents to support each other and share information (Chowdhury Fink & Hearne, 2008: 5). The role of family is particularly important in cases of underage radicalised youths, who are practically dependent on their parents’ support and thus need them to be on board with their rehabilitation by providing them with a safe environment.

(20)

20

2.3.3 Critical Thinking

Successful rehabilitation requires critical thought in order to . She describes critical thinking skills as “the ability to evaluate, analyse, and assess information in order to come to a reasoned conclusion able to guide behaviour and inform beliefs” (Marsden 2015a: 154). You could see that not only as a prevention from radical ideologies, but also as a way to ensure the former is arguing and acting from his individual point of view, not that of a social group. This avoids the salience of a social group perspective over others and allows for the development of a more complex, individual identity. Cognitive

behavioural therapy, which asserts that cognitive processes that lead one towards support of violent extremist attitudes (or criminal behaviour) can be changed using work on critical reasoning, abstract thought and reflection on multiple perspectives, has been successful in reducing recidivism among regular offenders and could also be employed in assisting violent extremists with developing new cognitive patterns (Veldhuis 2012: 10). Development of critical thought can also be done in the form of roleplay or theatre, such as in the Diversity and Dialogue programme of Exit Motala, where these methods are used to address problems like social marginalisation (Demant et al. 2008a: 165).

2.3.4 Multifaceted Identity

There are many similarities between cult members and extremists in terms of the way the groups operate and how one leaves and rehabilitates themselves after such an experience. Insights can therefore be gained also from Hassan’s study on breaking free from a cult. His list of factors for helping a cult member leave include “developing models of identity, accessing the pre-cult identity, prompting the cult member to look at reality from many different perspectives” (Hassan 1988: 148-167 cited in Barrelle 2014: 14). These tasks require alteration between various social identities, awareness of this multi-identity and also allow for a sense of security through return to something familiar, a former identity, rather than having to develop something new. One of the aims of the probation work at Central Extremism Unit is for individuals within the rehabilitation program to develop a broader multifaceted identity, stemming beyond a single-minded affiliation with

(21)

21 extremist ideology. This involves the realization that one can hold multiple identities at once and that they do not contradict each other (Marsden 2015a: 155).

2.3.5 Security and Assurance

The above tools towards rehabilitation mostly revolved around forms of social identity construction, whether that comprised engagement in society through social connections, ability to assess the self and the world in a more nuanced way using critical thinking, development of multiple social identities to diminish the salience of a prevalent identity related to an extremist ideology, or support of family relationships. Though playing an important role in the ability to reintegrate into society, identity is not the factor that matters. There are also practical restraints to rehabilitation, such as a need for self-(job etc.). For that reason European rehabilitation programs often place less emphasis on ideology and more on practical and financial assistance with leaving the extremist environment (Dalgaard-Nielsen 2013: 100), on which these individuals are often dependent for income, housing, etc. Security from the group is among pull factors towards extremist groups, so the possibility of independence through employment opportunities or education might persuade members to disengage (Altier et al. 2014: 649). For that reason, many rehabilitation programs have education or vocational training at its core, including literacy and language courses, as well as basic maths, history and civics. Some clients study up to gain their high school diploma as many drop out of school before completing their education; others may even opt for a university programme. Education improves the client’s employability, and by expanding their intellectual perspectives and increasing their self-esteem and self-efficacy, supports the individual’s resilience to violent extremist messages (Veldhuis 2012: 9).

The Norwegian Exit program for example focuses on finding housing and employment for those leaving right-wing extremist environments as a re-integration strategy (Demant et al. 2008b: 7). Sweden goes a step further by even providing safe houses for those with increased security threats upon leaving the group (Chowdhury Fink & Hearn, 2008: 5). Similar support is offered by EXIT Germany, the Danish Aarhus model as well as a multitude of prison rehabilitation programs. Some programs even offer

(22)

22 financial incentives such as stipends to reduce dependency on the extremist group (Altier et al. 2014: 650). Likewise the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee provides rehabilitation programmes for former Guantanamo Bay detainees in the form of a three-month-long programme involving religious, psychological, social and art therapy, followed by “financial assistance, employment and marriage services, housing, medical treatment and more” to assist them with reintegration into society (UN, 2013). From the perspective of social identity theory, these elements of security make the formers less dependent on their extremist groups and their identification with them. They will not feel lost without this selected identity and will have the opportunity to develop new social identities within the social contexts of their jobs or schools. Bertelsen, a counsellor and founder of the Aarhus model, also emphasizes that it’s essential for extremists to see a way out, to know that there is a society for them to return to; otherwise they’ll have no alternative than to sink deeper into the violent path (Braw 2014).

The above categories give us a preliminary insight into some of the factors that may play a role in the success of rehabilitation and will aid in developing hypotheses for expected findings. Due to the still limited research on the topic and the predominant focus on deradicalisation, rather than reintegration, research focusing on the experience of the formers themselves will help us understand better who the key players were during this stage, what were the critical moments, what helped and why or what the major obstacles were and what would have made this process easier for them. This knowledge can help advise policy and NGOs in facilitating the reintegration process or at least creating an environment where formers are welcomed.

(23)

23

3. Research Plan

3.1 Research Question

By helping extremists return to society we reduce crime rate, prevent terrorism and make society safer (RAN 2014). In order to increase the chances of successful reintegration or to develop models of reintegration, it is first important to understand the needs and challenges of former violent extremists during their transition process from violent extremist groups back into society. Looking at individuals leaving far-right and Islamist movements, this research will thus investigate the following questions:

- How do former violent extremists experience the transition from their extremist groups into society?

- What are the needs of formers during the period of reintegration?

- What does this teach us about possible interventions to facilitate the reintegration process?

3.2 Thesis statement

Given the insights we already have from the literature review, I expect to find that there are certain factors that complicate the reintegration process, such as threats from the environment, the stigma of being labelled as an extremist, and the fear of change and of uncertainty. I also expect to find the importance of social contacts and family

relationships as well as forms of security like education or employment and housing as positive influences on the rehabilitation process. Nevertheless I also expect the additional research to reveal the priorities of these various factors or the specificities of what works for whom under what circumstances and why. There is also little knowledge about how most people go through this process of reintegration, whether they receive any support from governments or NGO programs, whether they actively seek out support from family or other community members, or whether they find their way back into society on their

(24)

24 own, and whether they even perceive it as a process of reintegration, or they never felt as not being part of the mainstream in the first place. I expect that even though we already have knowledge of some basic categories, in-depth narrative interviews will reveal a more nuanced insight into the experience of individuals with a violent extremist past trying to put this past behind and develop understanding of the impact this phase itself has on the individual.

4. Methodology

4.1 Research Methods

4.1.1 Narrative Interviews

The only way to really gain an understanding of how former violent extremists

experience their reintegration is to speak to them. The majority of research on the topic of violent extremist rehabilitation relies on analysis of secondary data and only 1% of such reports use interviews in a structured and systematic manner (Horgan 2011: 196).

Acquiring first-hand information from members of the studied group therefore seemed as not only a contribution to the field, but primarily a way to give them a voice through sharing their experiences and providing input on rehabilitation strategies. Data was thus collected using the method of narrative interviews with former members of groups or organisations that have been labelled as extremist, with either a far-right or Islamist ideology. These two affiliations were selected because they are the most prevalent types of extremism in the studied countries of Central and Western Europe and because there are enough similarities among them to look at them collectively (Hans 2012), as was confirmed by findings of this research.

(25)

25 While focus in the analysis is on the period between the moment the interviewee decided to leave the radical movement until today, the scope of the interviews covered the respondents' entire history with the movement (Bauer 1996), as it is difficult to look at exit without entry; to interpret the experiences of disengagement and rehabilitation, one needs to know the context of what motivated one to join the first place, what were the circumstances that lead them to embracing violent extremist ideologies? (van der Valk & Wagenaar 2010). Their activities and roles within the radical movements were also discussed, as their circumstances during their involvement could also impact the context of their rehabilitation, for example what status they had within the group, what levels of violence were they exposed to or involved in, did they acquire criminal records, how were their relationships with people outside the movement, etc. The aim was also to see whether there is a correlation between what these individuals were missing in their lives that the radical groups offered them and what the biggest challenges were to their rehabilitation – did they still face the same issues as when they were entering, or have new barriers been erected by their involvement in these movements?

The reason the method of narrative interviews was selected over semi-structured interviews was to avoid shaping responses by predetermined categories and expectations and to allow for more in-depth data gathering (Bauer 1996). The respondents’ own interpretation of their lives and needs enabled determination of priorities based on the saliencing of key moments, people or factors in their narratives.

Because of the sensitivity of the topics discussed and expected duration of interviews, they were conducted in a safe environment of the respondents’ choice. In some cases this consisted of a public space like a quiet cafe or their place of work, in others they preferred a Skype conversation from the safety of their homes. Interviews lasted between one and three hours. They were recorded on a dictaphone, transcribed, and findings anonymised. In order to protect the identity of the respondents, any personal details, including names, references to cities, professions, details of their stories or names of the groups they were members of have been excluded from the quotes. For that reason quotes are also used without reference to specific respondents, so that their stories cannot be put together and jeopardise their anonymity. All but one of the interviews were

(26)

26 interview took place in a different language had the original quotes been included in the footnote to accompany their English translations, the original language quotes have been left out.

4.1.2 Expert Interviews

To complement the limited number of interviews with formers, expert interviews were conducted with a director of an exit organisation and a deradicalisation expert who provides individual counselling, family counselling and training of counsellors and advisory to governments on how to build deradicalisation programs. The interviews focused on their insights from many years of involvement with quantities of individuals trying to leave extremist environments, as well as with various institutions, regarding the profiles of their clients, patterns observed among their experiences, best practices,

perceived needs of the formers and about the aims of and methods used in their programs. An expert interview implies a focused interview with an authority on the researched topic, in which we are not interested in the respondent’s personal attitudes or themselves as a researched subject, but their professional or thematic knowledge (Hendl 2005). While expert interviews cannot convey the personal experience of transitioning from an extremist group to mainstream society and the reflections and perceptions of formers of their situation, they can provide a broader picture. They provide an insider's view with the detachment of an expert and awareness of the wider context, as well as theory and legislation. Experts from exit organisations can furthermore see the development of individuals over time and evaluate their progress. An expert has experience with dozens of clients, if not more, which allows for assessment of a larger group, not only the situation of selected respondents.

These interviews were conducted as semi-structured interviews using grounded theory, a form of inductive research using which theoretical concepts and hypotheses are generated and repeatedly tested through developed concepts (Yancey Martin & Turner, 1986). The interviews were therefore based on predefined topics, but not the precise wording and order of questions, allowing adaptation to the situation and thorough capturing of all available information. The expert interviews were only carried out

(27)

27 following all of the narrative interviews with formers and thus these topics were derived from previously analysed material, such as theory derived from the literature review, as well as the experiences of interviewed formers. The data was then coded into narrower categories (Flick 2004: 253). The interviews lasted up to 45 minutes and were conducted through Skype and telephone calls.

4.1.3 Profile of interviewees

Due to the difficulty of reaching out to former violent extremists, the number of

respondents is relatively low, as is not uncommon with qualitative research. Interviews were conducted with eight individuals from five countries, six of whom were formerly members of far-right movements, two had a history in Islamist groups. Though perhaps not proportionally accurate, this division also reflects the misbalance among the numbers of supporters of the various movements on the extremist scene in the countries which they came from, where the far-right still out-weighs Islamist support. While roughly an equal number of individuals from both directions were approached with requests for interviews, those with a right-wing past were more willing to speak about their

experiences. While women are represented disproportionately among violent extremists and are in the minority4 (Carter 2013), unfortunately it was not possible to obtain testimonies from even just a few women for this research. Multiple women with a past involvement in both far-right and Islamist groups were approached, but none agreed to participate. This could be in part due to a perceived higher security risk for former female members than male members if their identity would be jeopardized.

Various pathways were used to reach respondents in order to reach a diversity of profiles. Due to selection bias however, a higher proportion of the people interviewed are currently in some way active in counter-radicalisation initiatives than is common among formers, of whom the majority disappear into the mainstream (Bharath 2016). Those

4

Proportion of women among violent extremist combatants is estimated to range between 10 and 40 percent, depending on region and type of extremism they are involved in. According to NY Times women make up about 10 percent of ISIS recruits (Huckerby 2015), however among guerilla/separatist struggles, the numbers may range between 30 and 40 percent, as reported by Ness 2007. In the extreme right

involvement of women varies per group; in some their numbers are growing, in others, if present at all, they only take on roles as partners (van der Walk & Wagenaar 2010: 28).

(28)

28 individuals with no connection to exit organisations, support groups, or

counter-radicalisation initiatives are however difficult to identify and often do not wish to speak about their past. Those who are willing to discuss their experiences are often those who have done so before and have become activists.

Extremists, unlike the image often portrayed by media of predominantly disenfranchised youth without prospects5, are not a homogeneous group of people. As Daniel Koehler, director of the German Institute on Radicalization and Deradicalization Studies says,

“I've talked to clients from all types of these programs, so I know that the variety can be vast and be from minors, from children with psychological diseases, from abusive families, to university professors, doctors with families and good wages, so it can be anybody basically” (interview, 11th May 2016).

This was also true of interviewees in this study, whose education ranged from unfinished high school to PhD, and their professions varied from students, through artistic professions, work with youth, medical professionals, NGOs and more. At the time of interviews, respondents were aged between their late twenties and early fifties. They all joined the radical groups at very young ages, between age 13 and roughly 20 and remained in the group for a period of one year to more than twenty years.

If we are talking about the reintegration into a society, the society too, naturally is an actor. It is not only about the efforts of the individual, but also the society’s

willingness to accept them. The nature of this society will therefore inevitably affect the former extremist’s experience of reintegration. In order to maintain consistency in the research and avoid introducing new independent variables, perhaps it would have been safer to conduct all interviews in one country. On the other hand, so long as the studied

5_{For example “Radicalization of youth is becoming one of the most important threats of international}

terrorism in the world today. Socially isolated, disenchanted young men turn to extremism in their search for identity, acceptance and purpose” (Bizina 2014) or “It is here that extremism fills the vacuum and promises meaning, power, and salvation to an ever-growing stream of disenfranchised recruits” (Brennan et al. 2015).

(29)

29 societies aren’t too distant, differences between them shouldn’t be so significant that it would prevent us from understanding the experience. If anything, it allows us to study a diversity of experiences. The research is therefore limited not to one country alone, but to Central and Western Europe, largely due to difficulty in finding enough respondents within one country. Interviewees came from the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, UK and the Czech Republic.

4.1.4 Validity and Reliability

In terms of representativity, despite their small number, these diversified experiences of interviewees from various backgrounds cover a scale of paths out of extremist movements and experience with various receptions by mainstream society. Their experiences were quite diverse in terms of the channels towards exit – three of them had served prison sentences for violent criminal activities within extremist organisations and disengaged following their sentence, some left very gradually and inconspicuously over a number of years, others – though unintentionally - left with a bang; one left with the help of an exit organisation, others received no support in their transition whatsoever; some received death-threats for years following their exit and are still facing daily security threats while others have managed to cut loose of their past without major repercussions from their environment; there were individuals who use their experience and expertise as former members of extremist groups to prevent

radicalisation, others have detached from this topic entirely and try not to let it shape their future; there are those who still struggle with consequences of their past like drug or alcohol abuse and trauma, and others who seem to lead quite ordinary lives. Yet despite the diversity there were clear patterns reoccurring among them. In this regard their stories cover a large scale of scenarios that seem to fit in the framework of pathways to

rehabilitation.

There are however factors that must be taken into account in a consideration of validity; defining whether the experiences of the individuals interviewed are

representative of those of most people leaving violent extremist movements. Most of the people interviewed were high up in the hierarchy of their groups, whether as leaders, or

(30)

30 influential members with a senior status, but more importantly, all of them were highly intelligent and reflective of their experiences, surroundings, their environment and interested in the well-being of the word. This could have given them some advantage over members with less status within the groups, less inner strength and lesser abilities like social skills and leadership skills which aided them in building a new social network and obtaining new employment. This was also mentioned by some of the respondents, that other members of their groups had it even more difficult when leaving, because they didn't have the respect from the group to protect them upon their exit and they didn't have the social skills to start over new. So while in the context of qualitative research and a relatively under-researched topic6 with hard-to-reach respondents, a sample of 8

respondents, triangulated with two expert interviews can be seen as reasonably valid, and the findings corroborate the available theory, it is important to keep in mind that these stories over-represent a certain role within extremist groups. Nevertheless, the patterns identified in their stories seem to be relatively universal and eventually, it is important to see each path of an individual leaving an extremist movement as a unique life-story that cannot be generalised and lead to a guide of best practice no matter how many stories are collected.

4.2 Research strategy

In order to approach respondents, the method of convenience sampling and snowball method was used (Wilmot 2005: 1, 6). People were approached through a network of formers Against Violent Extremism, based on articles published about their experiences, following contributions at conferences or private events. They were also approached vicariously via contacts in exit organisations, researchers and mutual acquaintances. While this method of non-probability sampling involves a significant selection bias, both due to the narrow selection of respondents that will be approached and the expected

6

According to van der Valk & Wagenaar (2010: 4), studies of individual radicalisation and disengagement, rather than research on groups, is rare. Barrelle claims that “There are less than 20 empirically based publications on individual disengagement in a Western democratic context” (2014: 130).

(31)

31 profile of respondents willing to be interviewed, with this hard-to-reach target group, a more representative method of sampling is not possible as there is no register or database of former extremists that could be used to approach participants (Mack et al. 2005: 5-6). Nevertheless, individual experiences are never representative and while the interviewees may have certain traits in common, such as their inclination towards anti-radicalisation activism, their profiles are still diverse in terms of their backgrounds, forms of extremism with which they were affiliated and occupation. Furthermore, their paths towards

reintegration are still largely varied and their stories no less valuable due to the selection bias.

(32)

32

5. Ethics Statement

While researching such a sensitive topic as rehabilitation of extremists, focusing on a very vulnerable and difficult period of the respondents’ lives, there are certain risks towards the interviewees, such as eliciting traumatic memories or putting them at risk of exposure. It was my promise that during this research I would adhere to the highest possible ethical standards and maintain integrity at all times of data gathering. I made sure to protect the identity of interviewed formers by providing them anonymity,

changing identifying factors like names, references to cities, professions, details of their stories or names of the groups they were members of to avoid revealing any personal information and to respect confidentiality. I sought out informed consent from

interviewees about the nature and scope of the interviews as well as issues of privacy and publishing prior to conducting interviews. In order to avoid upsetting participants, I was sensitive to the situation during interviews, making sure not to push on subjects they didn’t wish to speak about. The study did not involve any covert data gathering. I have reported my findings honestly and truthfully. I only reported information that is in the public domain and within the law. Avoiding plagiarism, I have fully acknowledged the work of others upon which I drew.

(33)

33

6. Findings:

Being part of an extremist group is a 24/7 commitment. It controls every aspect of your life, much like a cult (Demant et al. 2008a: 26). Leaving such an environment behind therefore poses many challenges, both practical and identity related. On top of the issues arising from the exit itself, such as resistance from the group and ensuing security threats, there are practical aspects of life that formers often need to build up from scratch, such as finding a new job, housing, raising personal financial means, etc., which are further obstructed by social stigma connected to their extremist past and possible criminal records. Upon leaving the group, formers also find themselves in a complete social vacuum, losing their entire social network, next to struggling with building up a personal identity unrelated to their former ideology and finding a different means to feel

significant. These are the hurdles they have to overcome looking into the future after disengaging with a violent extremist group, and then there are the psychological consequences of their past in it, such as trauma from participating in and witnessing violence, remorse over their actions, broken relationships as a result of their engagement with the extremist group. These findings correspond to those of Demant et al. (2008a: 116), who categorise barriers to disengagement as 1) social dependency, 2) psychological dependency, 3) the extent of the costs involved, 4) reprisals, 5) fear of loss of reputation and protection and 6) a marginal position following disengagement. Social dependency consists of the social vacuum the individual falls into when leaving an isolated social group of extremists, the psychological dependency links to the close link of one's identity to the group identity of the violent extremist ideology they are affiliated to, costs

involved can include loss of job, residence and financial means if those are linked to involvement in the movement, reprisals refer to the security issues faced from members of the group, loss of reputation links to societal stigma related to being labelled an extremist as well as loss of status which they had within the moment, and the marginal position in society covers all of the above. It seems that the factors discouraging disengagement from a violent extremist movement are the same ones that inhibit

reintegration into society, and so even though the two processes shouldn't necessarily be equated, clearly it is the expectations of challenges to rehabilitation that desist members

(34)

34 of violent extremist movements to disengage from their involvement within. This

underlines the need to understand and ameliorate conditions for rehabilitation to increase rates of deradicalisation among violent extremists.

While these findings on the most part confirm the hypotheses of factors that were expected to play a role, what I found was that the challenges faced by formers following exit were largely practical, whereas the crutches that facilitated their reintegration process were far more related to their social identity construction as contributing, 'normal'

members of mainstream society. Although findings mostly confirm the factors

contributing to successful rehabilitation identified in the literature review – i.e. social connections outside of radical in-group, security and assurance, development of a multifaceted identity and critical thinking skills, though not so much the family

relationships – the analysis does not stick to this categorisation, as new elements arose from the interviews and priorities seemed to lie elsewhere. A new frame was developed for the findings to correspond with the picture gained from the multiple narratives. Though the list of factors that play a role in the rehabilitation of violent extremists is far longer, the following chapter discusses those features that had the most significant impact on the experience of the transition period of the interviewees and that were common to the majority of respondents. In order to better understand what the experience of

rehabilitation entails, what the formers' needs are in this period and what can be done, by society, their immediate surroundings, or various institutions to ease this process, the following chapter elaborates on the most pervasive challenges to violent extremist rehabilitation as indicated by the interviewed formers and experts from the field, as well as their accounts of helped them in this period.

6.1 Challenges:

6.1.1 Security threats

The foremost challenge to rehabilitation expressed by the majority of the respondents was of practical nature rather than social identity related, and it was that of the immense

(35)

35 security threat upon leaving the movement. Most violent extremist groups see entry into them as a commitment for life. It is not easy to leave and those who try to are often faced with violence from other members. Either they are seen as traitors or as apostates, so members of their former group desire revenge, or the group fears the defector might speak to the police or that others will follow and thus do all they can to deter the

individual from disengaging. One of the respondents describes how the only way for him to escape this world was to move to a larger city across country:

“I saved up 10 days of pay and then I disappeared to (*city x). I had to go there for two years. If I would stay in (*city y) where I lived most of my life, all hell would break loose. There would have been violent attacks on myself. There would have been really severe repercussions. The fact that I was on the National Council and that I controlled the [?] and knew where all the CDs and all that sort of stuff was made. I knew all the organizers up and down the country. If one leaves, it would start to rip up. That would be what they would be scared of.”

One former member of an Islamist movement explains how even years after his arrest for a largely medialised incident, having long ago deradicalised and hoping to build a new life, his past would catch up with him:

“You know, I thought it's in the past. This was 2011, so I had this feeling, it's 7 years ago, probably everyone forgot about it, I’m probably very anonymous, I can build up a new life. And I come into normal prison and one of the first things I see is these two Salafis. Big beards, Islamic clothing, one of them really powerful, looking very dirty at me, saying ‘we’re gona kill you, you know we’re gona kill you, you’re a traitor, you’re an apostate’.”

One way formers try to deal with this is by leaving gradually and inconspicuously, without the group noticing they are quitting, rather than leaving with a bang.

(36)

36 “I guess because I chose to do it very smoothly and just drift away, instead of getting up in a meeting and saying ‘hey guys, this sucks, I’m leaving’, doing it a smoother way made it much easier… it was difficult for them to realise that I was leaving.”

Furthermore, you make a lot of enemies as an extremist and when you leave the group, you still have the old enemies, but now you have a new one in your former group and nobody to protect you. The experts I interviewed, one of whom shared a story of an unsuccessful intervention, when society failed to provide security needed to be able to rehabilitate, confirmed this:

“The problem was that in his suburb you have 3 groups: you have the neo-Nazis, you have the militant anti-racists who committed a lot of violence against the neo-Nazi groups, and then you have kind of a mixed group of Swedes and immigrants who were in some type of criminal constellation, which was also in conflict with the neo-Nazis. And what happened is that when he left the white-Power group, society failed to give him proper support, protection, back-up and he ended up being alone. Instead of having protection from one group and two enemies, he now had three enemies, and nobody who really helped him with this. Everything from getting home from school without getting attacked... A lot of different aspects... Many ways in which society failed him. He chose to go back, because at least he got protection from the other groups that were angry with him. So that would be one of the really tragic failures of society, when we couldn't really help society to mobilise properly to protect him.”

This of course has practical implications for formers trying to reintegrate into society. On one hand this might mean having to move if your place of residence is discovered and keeping your address secret, as was the case with this former jihadi:

“I lived in (*city), and I was in the beginning active anonymously on social media, but I got threatened by jihadists. They found my address somehow,