Section outline
-
Inclusive efforts in preventing and countering violent extremism can contribute to transformative change in society, which is about transforming repressive or unequal power relations for more equitable norms and relations to emerge, which then contributes to sustaining peace.
Power is the ability to influence others to get a particular outcome. Power holders, normally policymakers and institutions, often support peacebuilding processes to address root causes that either prevent or respond to violent conflict. However, power dynamic imbalances between those making decisions and those impacted by those decisions, can make joint efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism more ineffective. Power can be derived from three levels: individual, institutional, and socio-cultural. Individual level power is each person’s ability to influence others. One’s level of education, gender, and socio-economic background can influence one’s individual level of power. Institutional power is power that organizations and institutions offer to influence others. Examples of institutional power include the level of access that institutions offer to influencers, access to funding, and the ability to influence rules and policies. Socio-cultural power is power which influences the norms, customs, and cultural dynamics within one’s community. Examples of socio-cultural power include the influence of gender norms and the role of faith and faith actors. For example, if the social norm for women and young women is a culture based on obedience, this creates a power imbalance and limits the ability for women and young women to make decisions and take action for themselves. The important point to note is that balancing power between stakeholders and ensuring all members of the community have a place at the decision-making table leads to a more sustainable partnership and future outcomes. Addressing power imbalances at the individual, institutional, and socio-cultural levels is vital.
-