PAVE Training Module 5

Welcome to Module 5 of the Preventing and Addressing Violent Extremism (PAVE) project on bridging partnerships with faith-based actors and institutions in preventing and/or countering violent extremism and supporting community resilience in your context. In this module, we are examining the PAVE research findings on interactions between state and religious institutions in the Western Balkans and MENA regions and why it is critical to support and partner with faith-based actors and institutions to prevent and counter violent extremism. This module will also examine technical tools that faith actors and their community partners can utilize to address violent extremism and bolster community resilience, including the role of nonviolent communication and intra and interfaith dialogue.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Total Training: 4 hours

Sessions in Module 5 

Session 1: The Important Role of Faith Actors and Faith-based Institutions in P/CVE Work

Session 2: Building Community Resilience Through Depolarization

Session 3: Utilizing Nonviolent Communication Skills to P/CVE

Session 4: Using Intra and Interfaith Dialogue to P/CVE

PAVE has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 870769.

PAVE Publications

Published by the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. April 2023.

This publication is part of WP7 of the PAVE project, led by Finn Church Aid (FCA) / the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers.

Authors: Jessica Roland and Sarah Tyler

Design: Triss Yap, Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers

A special thanks to those who helped to refine and support the development of this training module, including: Milla Perukangas, Dr. Mohamed Elsanousi, Jason Yabal, Mohamed Abu Zaid, Maja Halilovic-Pastouvic, Lara Azzam, Tarja Mankkinen, Miriam Attias, Emina Frljak, Sarah Oliver, Professor Mohamed Abu Nimer, Dafina Bytyqi, Zlatko Apostoloski, Zelda Cossa, Sister Zeph, Ahmed Windi, Lantana Bako Abdullahi, James Movel Wuye, and Muhammad Nuruddeen Lemu.

The authors are solely responsible for its content, it does not represent the opinion of the European Commission and the Commission is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein.

To cite: The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. Training Module 5: Building Partnerships with Faith-Based Actors and Institutions in Preventing and/or Countering Violent Extremism and Supporting Community Resilience. 2023. PAVE Project Publications.

Objective: In this first session, our objective will be to explore and understand the important role of faith actors and institutions in preventing and countering violent extremism.

Expected Results: The expected results of this first session will be that participants have an introductory understanding of the role of faith leaders in preventing and countering violent extremism and why it is critical to partner together to address violent extremism. Participants will have an opportunity to start opening up and reflecting on impacts that they have seen within their own contexts by faith actors and institutions.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Session 1: 30 minutes

Agenda for Session 1

-What is the Role of Faith Actors in P/CVE and Supporting Community Resilience?

-Why Should Faith Leaders Participate Within These Efforts?

-How Have and Should Faith Actors Participate Within These Efforts?

Photo Source: The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. https://www.peacemakersnetwork.org.

With so many individuals from around the world associating themselves with faith communities, faith actors are in an important position to be able to provide a place of guidance in times of crisis for many, as social conveners and mobilizers. Therefore, it is important to engage all actors, including faith actors with relevant knowledge and resources for prevention.

But why is engaging faith actors in P/CVE so critical?

Source: The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. “Introduction to the Peacemakers Network.” 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c637x5yaxw.

Photo Source: UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. “Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes.” https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Plan_of_Action_Religious_Prevent_Incite.pdf.

Faith actors have and will continue to play an important role within P/CVE efforts. For example, the Rabat Plan of Action recommends that religious leaders refrain from using messages of intolerance or expressions which may incite violence, hostility or discrimination and also notes that faith actors have a crucial role to play in speaking out firmly and promptly against intolerance, discriminatory stereotyping and instances of hate speech. The UN Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes, also further focuses on the critical role that faith actors play in preventing violence and atrocity crimes. 

Faith actors also utilize many different unique tools and techniques within P/CVE efforts, a few of which you will learn about later on within this training module.

Here are a few examples:

• Faith actors continue to work in collaboration with policymakers, security authorities –including prisons, and civil society within P/CVE efforts.
• Faith actors create systems to support and uplift spiritual and cultural life, including through sports, music, and art.
• Faith actors offer to help individuals or groups with reconciliation.
• Faith actors can play a clear resilience role by being at the forefront of non-violent protests and publicly rejecting the use of violence by their own followers.
• Faith actors can provide critical support in promoting alternative or counter-narratives to help stifle radicalization.
• Faith actors can utilize interfaith dialogue, or offer constructive, cooperative and positive exchanges between people of different faiths or religious traditions and/or spiritual or humanistic beliefs. It can happen both at an interpersonal and institutional level and from local to international levels.

Numerous efforts, including policy papers and policy-oriented symposia, have over the past few years acknowledged that the faith-based sector should be involved at all levels in efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism. Internationally, policymakers are targeting portions of their P/CVE strategy to directly work with religious partners, convening gatherings with various stakeholders to better understand whom to engage and how. On a national level, governments are considering the role of religion in various components of violent extremism and, in varying degrees and levels of effectiveness, recognizing that the faith-based sector can have positive roles in P/CVE efforts, especially on a local level. But for policymakers and government and security actors to work effectively with religious actors, they must engage carefully and appreciate their unique, sometimes complex roles within their communities.

P/CVE policy, internationally and domestically, has tended to instrumentalize faith actors—if they are referenced in a positive, collaborative way at all. For example, a government initiative may seek moderate religious leaders to offer counter-narratives to violent interpretations of religious scripture, often offering to support the religious leader or organization in various ways, including financially or through skills-based training.

Instrumentalizing faith actors is counterproductive at best, and dangerous (even potentially life threatening) at worst in not being seen as neutral or trusted by their communities, given the complex positionality of many faith actors in their communities and societies. Political and financial linkages can further threaten a faith actor’s position and role within his or her community. Another harmful example is when security officials call on faith leaders to provide surveillance and report any signs of radicalization among their community members, as has been happening around the world. When faith leaders comply, however, they risk again, being perceived as agents of the government and as no longer credible in their community. Engagement with faith actors must be done carefully, respectfully, and inclusively, and include a recognition that the same approach cannot be effective in every setting.

Source: USIP. “Faith and Fragile States First Panel: Religious Engagement in Countering Violent Extremism.” 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R83CGIgITns.

Hear from Sheikh Mohamed Abu Zaid, Advisory Board Member for the PAVE Project, on the important role of faith actors within P/CVE work and supporting community resilience.

Source: PAVE Project. 'Sheikh Mohamed Abu Zaid: Role of Faith Actors in P/CVE and Community Resilience.' 2023. https://youtu.be/Xe5crFf3YWA.

During the PAVE project, it was also commonly noted across all focus groups and survey responses that faith actors have significant influence over their local communities and thus can contribute to both resilience and vulnerability factors to P/CVE-related efforts. However, there remains a lack of understanding as to the exact role faith actors might play in these efforts. Below are factors of vulnerability identified by the PAVE project related to faith actors and institutions.

Findings Around Vulnerability

• Faith actors – organizations, clergy, and leaders – play a role in upholding group identities that oftentimes are defined in hostility to an opposite ‘Other’. Religion is often not seen as an inherent problem, but rather it is the way in which religious resources are instrumentalized for political purposes which is perceived to be the driving force behind violent extremism. Political actors use and exploit religious sentiments, frameworks, and images in order to mobilize support for their political programs.
• Intrafaith and interfaith dialogue is not prioritized among religious communities.
• Religions cut across state borders. Religious identities are fundamentally transnational identities that create ties between co-religionists of different faith traditions. These can, and have been, exploited to serve the purposes of those propagating religious extremism.
• Many formal religious institutions operate dysfunctionally and informal religious institutions are competing for legitimacy.
• There is a lack of representation of women in the decision-making processes within formal religious institutions. In religious institutions, women are involved in affairs that concern primarily women. 
• The relationship between the economy of the state and religious institutions when religious institutions rely on state funding or donations from citizens. 
• Lack of funds for faith actors and institutions for P/CVE programming efforts.

While there are shortcomings in engaging faith actors and institutions, the PAVE project found many factors of resilience in engaging them as equally important partners. Below are actors of resilience identified by the PAVE project related to faith actors and institutions.

• The promotion of core values by faith actors, including their commitments of peace, dignity, and respect and being able to reach out to a wide constituency. For example, one community in Lebanon, whose faith leader promoted peace and dignity by allowing Syrian refugees to be buried in their town, unlike other communities. 
• The leadership factor of faith leaders on any issue is a resilience factor. 
• Social bonding within communities and social rapprochement between communities play a key role in building community resilience. For example, in Serbia religious communities traditionally show tolerance and respect for each other and often adopt a common position towards the state. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Interreligious Council is another example of this. 
• Faith actors who openly condemn acts of violence and intolerance. In Serbia, religious leaders increased community resilience by pushing back against attempts of radicalization, condemning openly intolerance and acts of violence. 
• The ability of informal grassroots religious institutions to mediate between armed groups and the government to de-escalate violence. For example, in the town of Arsal, the Association of Muslim Scholars took a lead in dialogue between the Lebanese Army and violent extremist groups.
• The role faith actors play in unauthorizing or delegitimizing armed groups or armed group leaders. For example, the Iraqi Chaldean Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako publicly dissociated the church from the PMF’s Babylon Brigade.
• In Tunisia, the unification of Islamic knowledge creation in a respected and recognized institution, such as al-Zaytouna University, was noted as an element of resilience against violent extremism, as it illustrates how a serious academic institution can have legitimacy in the religious community.
• Unfortunately, religious actors and communities have not contributed to factors of resilience in all contexts. In Lebanon, the religious institutions have to some extent served as a constraining factor when inter-religious ties have been strained.

• Al-Baalbaky, Rudayna, Faiza Ayed,  Juline Beaujouan, Zouheir Ben Jannet, Sadok Damak, Hmida Ennaifer, Josep García Coll, Samiha Hamdi, Marie Kortam, Hassan Laaguir, Amjed Rasheed, Fethi Rekik, Javier Ruipérez Canales, Mohammed Sharqawi, and Maher Zoghlami. ‘’Working Paper 4: Interactions between States and Religious Institutions in the MENA Region.’’ PAVE Consortium. March, 2022. https://pave-project.eu/publications/PAVE_870769_D4.2_publication_layout.pdf.

• KAICIID. ‘’Prevention and Response: The Contribution of Religious Leaders to Counteracting Violent Extremism and Promoting Social Solidarity in Europe.’’ December 1, 2020. https://www.kaiciid.org/dialogue-knowledge-hub/webinars/prevention-and-response-contribution-religious-leaders-counteracting.

• Kortam, Marie. ‘’Interactions between State and Religious Institutions in the Balkans and MENA region: Synthesis Report.’’ PAVE Consortium. May, 2022. https://pave-project.eu/publications/PAVE_870769_D4.3_publication_layout.pdf.

• Mandaville, Peter and Melissa Nozell. ‘’Special Report: Engaging Religion and Religious Actors in Countering Violent Extremism.’’ USIP. August, 2017. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR413-Engaging-Religion-and-Religious-Actors-in-Countering-Violent-Extremism.pdf.

• OHCHR. ‘’Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred.’’ January 11, 2013. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf.

• PaRD. “Partnering with Local Faith Actors to Support Peaceful and Inclusive Societies.” 2019. https://live-peacemakersnetwork.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/pard_sdg16_scoping_study_01_0-1.pdf.

• Pastuovic, Maja Halilovic, Goran Tepšić, Nemanja Džuverović, Sead Turcalo, Jelena Brkić-Šmigoc, Mirza Smajić, Veldin Kadić, Muamer Hirkić and Gillian Wylie. ‘’Working paper 3: Interactions between States and Religious Institutions in the Balkans.’’ PAVE Consortium. March, 2022. https://pave-project.eu/publications/PAVE_870769_D4.1_publication_layout.pdf.

• RAN. ‘’Conclusion Paper: P/CVE Work with Religious Communities and Faith-Based Organizations.’’ November 18, 2021. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/whats-new/publications/ran-western-balkans-pcve-work-religious-communities-and-faith-based-organisations-skopje-21-22_sl.

• UN OSAPG. ‘’Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes.’’ https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Plan_of_Action_Religious_Prevent_Incite.pdf.

Objective: In this second session, our objective will be to build an understanding on what polarization is, how it impacts local communities and what strategies local actors can use to identify, diagnose and address polarization, discourse and division.

Expected Results: The expected results of this second session will be that participants will understand how to address polarization to build social cohesion and resilience.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Session: 1.5 hours

Agenda for Session 2

• What is Polarization?

• How Does Polarization Impact Local Communities?

• Strategies to Depolarize Local Discourse and Build Social Cohesion

• Polarization Indicator Toolkit (BRaVE Project)

• Diagnosing Polarization Through Local Audits (Bridge Project)

• The Role of Local and Regional Authorities in Addressing Polarization

Photo Source: Chesterfield, Alex and Kate Coombs. “To Fight Polarization, Ask, “How Does that Policy Work?” November 25, 2019. Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/to-fight-polarization-ask-how-does-that-policy-work/.

Polarization is defined as, “a growing fragmentation of society into antagonistic collectives perceived as opponents in existential questions over a common future.” Polarization involves a process of sharpening differences between groups in society that can result in and from increased tensions. These tensions can result from social, political and economic influences. In highly divided and fragmented societies, groups or individuals that perceive themselves as marginalized or their identity as being threatened are more susceptible to being attracted by negative narratives about the ‘other’ group spread by polarizing actors, so-called ‘pushers’ of polarization. These polarizing narratives amplify differences, fuel hostility between groups and deny the existence of any unified group or shared narratives. Hostility towards other groups, ‘us-and-them’ thinking and the neglect of a common ground or shared values within society are features that are common to both the phenomena of polarization and of radicalization towards violent extremism.

The broader concept of polarization was initially developed to refer to and understand the unequal distribution of income – or socio-economic polarization. From a socio-economic perspective, this was seen as ‘the widening of the gap between specific groups of people in terms of their economic or social circumstances and opportunities.’ Polarization is, in a socio-economic context, initially used to understand growing income inequality – the widening  gap between rich and poor – or occupation – the expansion of jobs at the top and bottom of hierarchies – within economically advanced countries, and the subsequent impact this had on the middle classes. However, socio-economic polarization has since been expanded to include not just widening economic disparity but to include a variety of social and racial inequalities, and the impact this has on cohesion.

Political polarization is one of the most established and discussed indicators of party systems, with a canon of research becoming established on the polarization of parties or voting patterns. This has become increasingly relevant with the rise of right-wing populist parties and the fracturing of more orthodox political practices and landscapes in the last decade. The polarization of voters has been shown to create governmental instability, legislative deadlock, and the rise of political extremism. Such political polarization can be seen in the extent to which the platforms of competing parties are opposed, the level of party ideological homogeneity and the level of dislike expressed towards other parties. Indicators of political polarization on a national level have also been identified, including the number of extremist parties, their ideological focus and the percentage of their vote-share. Such a political focus on polarization represents the ideological hostility within a multi-party system, and the extent to which this becomes reflected in voting patterns and behavior. The marginalization of certain groups and the lack of representation or participation of all citizens in the democratic process can also be driving factors of polarization.

This has led to new discussions on the societal dangers of polarization and its role in enabling violence. Concerns have been raised over the rise of the far right – particularly the media-savvy ‘Alt-Right’ and ‘Alt-Light’ movements – as to the nature and credibility of the threat they post to democratic norms, structures and consensus-building. Such polarization has laid bare the fault lines of contemporary societies – between conservative and progressive, old and young, urban and rural areas, and those who have and haven’t been able to access higher levels of education. Such articulations of polarization – the exacerbation of political, social and cultural cleavages and inequalities – have created a context in which formations of so-called ‘violent extremism’ can and have begun to co-exist.

Hear from Maja Halilovic Pastuovic, PAVE Partner from Trinity College Dublin on how polarization impacts local communities.  

Source: PAVE Project. 'Maja Halilovic Pastuovic: How Polarization Impacts Local Communities.' 2023. https://youtu.be/8qR_oNVw9N0.

Many communities across the globe have become increasingly polarized in recent years due to new trends in identity and cultural politics, financial crises and political instability, the weaponization of crises by malicious political actors and the rise of irregular forms of media and social media. As a result, local communities are impacted in multi-faceted ways.

New trends of polarization around identity and cultural politics have been bringing forward feelings of exclusion and hostility. Articulations of identity that failed to transcend narrow, national or regional conceptualizations are understood as conducive to polarization, with such identities exclusionary by design, hostile to alternative cultural or faith communities, and framed as in direct competition with, and threatened by, coexistence with other identities. Feelings of hostility towards outgroups are also bound up with feelings of perceived injustices, victimhood and humiliation – powerful narratives of polarization and means of maintaining attachment to extremist groups. 

One of the central issues surrounding the rise of the far-right is the rise of an exclusionary identity. These present national identity as bound up with race or racial characteristics, as well as exceptionalizing certain traits or beliefs as being particularly or exclusively linked to certain nationalities (and not to others). This may delegitimize the existence of opposing opinions and minority communities, creating an inherent hostility against those seen as challenging national or majority supremacy. As a result, this leads to discrimination. The result fosters grievances of inequality around education and socio-economic status. This type of polarization further sows community division and legitimizes racism. Historical factors account for national historical and political trends, particularly how minority communities and political groups have been framed and treated by majority and governing groups. Politically disenfranchised individuals and groups often feel powerless and resentful of their lack of agency in remediating social disadvantage. In such situations, group violence becomes a more attractive means of redressing perceived inequalities. The laws protecting minority groups also impact levels of polarization, as states with limited or less consistently enforced hate crime and minority rights legislation are more likely to legitimize racism and community division. 

Exclusion based on identity thus also leads to the physical and spiritual segregation of family and community structures, including faith structures, through being segregated from the ‘demonizing of the other.’ Individuals become less empathetic of others and more stressed from the rise in violence and hate speech, which has a further impact on individual and community physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. Individuals also feel a pressure to conform within their groups. Polarization does not just manifest as intergroup conflict but changes the dynamics within groups, as people feel more pressure to conform in their beliefs and actions, which makes internal dissent and diversity less likely.

For example, in Central and Eastern Europe lingering articulations of national-socialist Antisemitism have been revived within localized grassroots movements, as seen in neo-Nazi marches and the recent violent attack at a synagogue in Halle. However, there has also been a rise in more covert forms of Anti-Semitism, as right-wing politicians in Hungary and Poland give credence to conspiracies and campaigns. Such racism has also sometimes seen populist right parties attempting to appeal directly to Jewish voters, playing the card of concern about Islamist violence or attempting to shape a new enemy of the Muslim migrant as representing an existential threat to the nation. In regions of Europe where the extreme right has often targeted ethnic minorities (Jews, Roma, etc.), Islamophobia can develop in the absence of Muslim populations as illiberal governments engage in revisionist policies. As such, populist governmental parties build their politics on the strategy of polarization, creating or recasting new enemies to maintain their power. Meanwhile, traditional, established parties have co-opted elements of far-right policies or rhetoric in attempts to out-flank populism, often ultimately acting to legitimize and enforce polarization.

Trends around financial crises and political instability, as well as the weaponization of crises by malicious political actors have also created a more antagonistic political culture. This antagonistic political culture creates a culture of accepted deception, and gridlock of progress on legislation including for funding which further impacts the economy. This type of polarization even makes it hard for political actors to problem solve on issues that all sides agree on. As a result, citizens lose trust in these key institutions.

Finally, the rise of irregular forms of media and social media have further contributed to the rise of increased polarization all over the world. Polarization is cited as the coming together of hate speech and fake news, as well as other dystopian narratives, combined with prejudices and stereotypes. For example, the use sensationalism within the news. In the European public sphere, there is an increasing focus on ‘crises’ and their news coverage whilst social media sites disrupt traditional channels of news distribution. This has led to the identification of ‘trigger events’, moments within the news cycle that are catalyzed by social media to recirculate alarmist or outright false news, creating misinformation or filter bubbles that reinforce polarization.

In recent years, social media networks have also played an important role in the development of far-reaching and consequential events, such as the assault on the U.S. Capitol in Washington in January 2021. It has been shown that algorithms developed by technological platforms to personalize the information we receive via navigation data have become instruments to control the flow of information and exert an increasing influence on public opinion and on the distribution of information. The risk of removing information that contradicts a user’s points of view, causing their de facto isolation in their own ideological bubble, is known as the ‘echo chamber’ phenomenon or ‘bubble’ filter. This isolation polarizes society and drastically reduces the opposition to and confrontation of ideas as an exercise in critical thinking. Social isolation has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and in some cases created the perfect breeding ground for polarized narratives, mindsets and behaviors. When individuals, groups or communities do not perceive themselves as fairly represented in the institutions responsible for COVID-related decision-making, social cohesion is undermined, and polarization reinforced.

Source: Source for Common Ground. “Video 4: Young Iman in Morocco - A Story of Bridge-Building.’’ 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StMWYkepds4.

Photo Source: European University Institute. “Polarisation Indicators.” BRaVE Project. http://brave-h2020.eu/toolkit.

In order to tackle polarization and build social cohesion, it is crucial to first identify what factors are causing polarization within your community. Social cohesion refers to the presence of social bonds: it holds society together through trust, reciprocity and solidarity. A society might have some form of polarization and at the same time a degree of social cohesion. For example, there might be a strongly polarized and divided political landscape, with political groups neglecting to share common ground, within an overall cohesive society and a general consensus on the norms and values of the democratic system. One project which seeks to examine factors of social cohesion and resilience, that can be used to further analyze other contexts, is the European Union BRaVE project.

The ‘Building Resilience against Violent Extremism and Polarization’ (BRaVE) project aims to systematize existing knowledge and assess the impact of policies and practices in preventing extreme ideologies and polarization in European societies. Based on the project’s research and analysis, the project developed a set of polarization indicators focused the role of three sets of factors in providing fertile ground for extremism and polarization to grow, or conversely in helping to build resilient and cohesive communities: historical and cultural factors; real and perceived socio-economic inequalities; and media discourses, particularly social media communication bubbles.

The BRaVE toolkit allows one to gain a view of ethnic/racial, religious, socio-economic, political, and gender, sex and sexuality-based polarization and resilience factors across ten European Union countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom. The toolkit consists of two sets of indicators: indicators of polarization and indicators of resilience. Polarization indicators are mirrored by a set of corresponding moderation indicators, for example, the polarization indicator set ‘Lack of Belonging’, which contains measures of individuals’ low/no sense of attachment to their local community and country, is mirrored by the moderating indicator set ‘Sense of Belonging’, which contains measures of individuals’ heightened sense of attachment to their country or community. Likewise, resilience indicators are mirrored by a set of corresponding non-resilience indicators. 

The toolkit is designed for a wide range of users: researchers, policymakers, NGOs, and other community-based actors. For this reason, the indicators are general in nature. Essentially, the toolkit is aimed at anyone who is interested in gaining an overview of the current state of different types of polarization and resilience across the European Union. Scores are not meant as an indication of country X performing better or worse than country Y in terms of polarization or resilience. Rather, they are intended to recognize individuals’ fears around those they consider to be different from themselves. Recognizing and understanding the nature of these fears is the first step towards opening up a conversation on such issues and building connections between individuals and the state and/or their communities. 

The toolkit resulted in a set of 100 initial indicators. Indicators were then divided into the four key conceptual categories featured in the BRaVE project framework: Socio-Economic (indicators relating to financial and welfare factors of polarization); Historical (indicators relating to state factors and historic conflicts and politics); Cultural (indicators relating to identity and cultural practices); and Communication-Based (indicators relating to offline and online content and interaction). The process of synthesizing the initial 100 indicators resulted in the development of 20 unique indicators, which were then arranged according to a further level of conceptual categorization within the BRaVE project: that of macro, meso and micro levels of classification. Here, macro refers to state level indicators, meso to community level indicators, and micro to individual or familial level indicators. 

Photo Source: McNeil-Willson, Richard, Vivian Gerrand, Francesca Scrinzi, and Anna Triandafyllidou. “Polarisation, Violent Extremism and Resilience in Europe today: An analytical framework.” BRaVE Project. December, 2019. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D2.1_BRaVE_concept_paper_final_10Dec2019.pdf.

There was also a correlation of factors of ‘violent extremism’ in relation to polarization that was identified. The BRaVE project identified factors cited as helping to create extreme political violence: a conducive environment; opportunity for violence; the cultivation of violent discourses; and the development of mobilizing networks. See table below.

Photo Source: European Forum for Urban Security. “BRIDGE - Understanding and Addressing Polarization at the Local Level.” June, 2021. https://issuu.com/efus/docs/publication_bridge_en_pages.

Building on the factors identified through the BRaVE project, you can go a step further and utilize these examples to help analyze depolarization factors and build social cohesion through diagnosing polarization with local audits. This was done through the ‘Building Resilience to Reduce Polarization and Growing Extremism’ (BRIDGE) project. The objectives of the BRIDGE project were to: raise awareness among local actors and strengthen their capacity to reduce individual and collective vulnerability to radicalization while at the same time mitigating the phenomenon of polarization. This EU Commission funded project consisted of thirteen local and regional European authorities from seven countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain.

A strategic approach to urban security, which should also include the objective of preventing polarization, builds on up-to-date knowledge of the local reality. The implementation of local actions to mitigate and prevent polarization and thus improve individual and collective security requires a clear and precise understanding of potential risk factors and actors, tensions and fragmentations in the specific context of each city. The best way to establish such an assessment is by conducting a local audit, meaning a systematic analysis of the phenomenon of polarization in a local context and at a given time. Indeed, an audit is a snapshot of a situation and thus needs to be regularly updated. It helps to identify priorities as well as assets and resources for preventive measures and enables local and regional authorities to develop concrete strategies to tackle the identified challenges. A local polarization audit will usually involve the analysis of the city’s or region’s demographic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as the identification of risk factors and actors that can contribute to increased tensions and polarization. The effectiveness of existing programs and activities aimed at strengthening social cohesion at the local level, including services such as health, housing, welfare and education, should be investigated, as well as the institutional and political environment, in order to build on opportunities and innovative practices. It is also crucial to identify opportunities to increase citizen participation and to involve civil society and local stakeholders in the elaboration of a comprehensive prevention strategy.

Here are a few overall factor areas that should be analyzed based on demographics, social structures, political and social participation, and protection:

Many local and regional authorities are lacking deep and detailed knowledge on the processes of polarization. As we have seen, polarization is a complex, multifaceted and rapidly evolving phenomenon. Research on polarization and policy strategies to address it are being developed at an equally high pace, yet they remain in an early stage. 

While the drivers of polarization can be located at the local, national or international level, the effects often play out locally, potentially fueling tensions, conflicts and violent behaviors within municipalities. 

Local and regional authorities are key stakeholders who can address polarization due to their extensive competencies and relevant resources in preventing violence and fostering social cohesion. Their crime prevention and urban security structures are best placed to diagnose and monitor phenomena of polarization and tensions at the local and regional level. In order to depict a full picture of potential risks and tensions, local and regional authorities should include all groups and communities as well as relevant stakeholders in assessment processes and in the elaboration of strategies and concrete activities to prevent or mitigate polarization. By raising awareness about the phenomenon of polarization, training stakeholders, empowering local actors and associating citizens in these efforts, local and regional authorities can strengthen their communities’ resilience to potential risk factors and actors. The continuous monitoring of polarizing dynamics and trends should be integrated into comprehensive urban security approaches and become a cornerstone of prevention policies at the local and regional level. A comprehensive approach allows local and regional authorities to foster a cohesive and resilient society that provides security for all. 

Prevention and resilience building constitute local authorities’ key assignments in the realm of integrated approaches to urban security. Various local actors and fields can be mobilized and can contribute to building resilience and help prevent polarization, such as youth centers, social and mental health centers, family counseling, sports clubs and religious communities. Prevention activities should foster tolerance and highlight the importance of social, cultural and religious diversity as a basic axiom of a peaceful and democratic society. Strengthening resilience encompasses encouraging individuals to reflect upon and empathize with different experiences, perspectives and viewpoints. Enabling dialogue and citizen participation, as well as ensuring that municipalities and other local institutions represent the diversity of the local population they serve, is fundamental to preserve social cohesion and prevent polarization.

Source: PAVE Project. 'Tarja Mankkinen: Engaging Faith Communities through a Multistakeholder Approach.' 2023. https://youtu.be/AEfSkeGffYY.

• European University Institute. “Polarisation Indicators.” BRaVE Project. http://brave-h2020.eu/toolkit.

• European Forum for Urban Security. “BRIDGE - Understanding and Addressing Polarization at the Local Level.” June, 2021. https://issuu.com/efus/docs/publication_bridge_en_pages.

• Jilani, Zaid and Jeremy Adam Smith. “What is the True Cost of Polarization in America?” Greater Good Magazine. March 4, 2019. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_is_the_true_cost_of_polarization_in_america.

• McNeil-Willson, Richard, Vivian Gerrand, Francesca Scrinzi, and Anna Triandafyllidou. “Polarisation, Violent Extremism and Resilience in Europe today: An analytical framework.” BRaVE Project. December, 2019. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D2.1_BRaVE_concept_paper_final_10Dec2019.pdf.

• Schlafani, Robin and Richard McNeil-Willson. “The Role of Cultural and Historical Factors in Polarization and Violent Extremism.” BRaVE Project. May, 2020. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D6.1_Discussion_Paper_May_2020.pdf.

• Taylor, Paul J. and Sheryl Prentice. “Project Report: Toolkit of Cross-National Polarisation Indicators.” http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/BRaVE%20Summary%20Report%20on%20Deliverable%204.3.pdf.

• Vidra, Zsuzsanna and Michael Zeller. “The Role of Socio-Economic Inequalities in Polarisation and Violent Extremism.’’ BRaVE Project. May, 2020. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D7.1._Discussion_Paper_May_2020.pdf.

Objective: In this third session, our objective will be to learn about and build deeper understanding on what the concept of nonviolent communication is about. 

Expected Results: The expected results of this second session will be that participants will build an understanding and knowledge on how to utilize and apply nonviolent communications as skill and tool within their communities within P/CVE efforts.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Session: 30 minutes

Agenda for Session 3:

• What is Nonviolent Communication?
• What Are the Fundamental Concepts and Assumptions of Nonviolent Communication?
• How Can I Utilize Nonviolent Communication in My P/CVE Work? The Importance of Language
• How Can I Utilize Nonviolent Communication in My P/CVE Work? The Importance of Communication
• What Attitudes Should I Embody to Implement Nonviolent Communication?
• At What Levels Should I Be Applying Nonviolent Communication?

What is Nonviolent Communication?

Source: The Center for Nonviolent Communication. ''What is Nonviolent Communication?'' https://www.cnvc.org/learn-nvc/what-is-nvc.

Nonviolent communication is based on the principle of ahimsa – the natural state of compassion when no violence is present in the heart.

Nonviolent communication is a consciousness that manifests as a way of being in the world. The purpose of nonviolent communication is to serve life and to create the quality of connection in which everyone’s needs can be met through compassionate giving. Through nonviolent communication we are able to hear our own deeper needs and those of others through an emphasis on deep listening.

1. Consciousness: A set of principles that support living a life of compassion, collaboration, courage, and authenticity.
   
2. Language: Understanding how words contribute to connection or distance.
3. Communication: Knowing how to ask for what you want, how to hear others even in disagreement, and how to move forward towards solutions that work for all.
4. Means of influence: Sharing “power with others” rather than using “power over others”.
   

All human beings have the same needs and feelings, but there are different strategies to meet those needs and feelings. First, you must start with your observation and then connect that to how you are feeling. Our feelings inform us of our needs and if they are being met or unmet, as well as the strategic actions that we should try to take to meet those needs, including our requests. For you to make a request of someone, you have to be okay with their answer or response, otherwise you have just made a demand. You have to be willing to rethink your approach to expressing your feelings to ensure you are communicating nonviolently.

Through empathetically listening and honestly expressing our feelings, needs, observations and requests, individuals can engage in nonviolent communication.

Source: Rosenberg, Marshall. ‘’Nonviolent communication: A Language of Life.’’ October 10, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sjA90hvnQ0&t=2s.

Below are some fundamental concepts and assumptions of nonviolent communication. These concepts support the integration of consciousness.

• Universal Human Needs: The concept of needs is the cornerstone of nonviolent communication. A need is defined as the energy in living organisms that compels them to seek fulfillment and to thrive. Examples of needs include water, air, freedom and meaning. We hold needs as universal. Thus, expressing our needs and acknowledging the needs of others enables us to connect at a deep place of the human experience and create common ground. We believe that all our actions --anything anyone ever does-- are attempts to meet our needs. With this realization in mind, we are able to understand others’ actions however baffling. We can transform judgment into empathic understanding. In a safe environment, free of judgment and blame, it is easier to find solutions that can meet everyone’s needs.

• Connection First: When conflict arises, we seek empathic connection first and then solutions. We define connection as the moment in which two people experience what is alive in each other simultaneously. We trust that in the space of heart connection we have access to a well of creativity where we can think of options that can meet everyone’s needs. In the context of connection, we can resolve disagreements peacefully.
  
• The Need for Contribution: We believe that contributing to the wellbeing of others is one of the most powerful forces of human motivation. At times, we disconnect from our need for contribution because of the way we have been conditioned to think -- that when our needs are not met it is the other person’s fault. When this happens, we want to punish the other person, not contribute to him or her. To restore our need for contribution we can ask someone to listen to us with empathy or engage in self-empathy to help us reconnect with our compassionate nature.

• Interdependence: We believe that human beings are interdependent, as opposed to independent. We need one another to live and to thrive. We believe that what affects one affects all. If a child is starving, we are all affected if we are aware of our deep feelings and the human need for the wellbeing of all. We need others to build the houses we live in, grow the fruit and vegetables we eat, and sew the clothes we wear. We need carpenters, doctors, janitors and teachers. Our environmental, health and economic systems affect the global community in visible and invisible but important ways.
  
• Value Judgments: Nonviolent communication invites us to judge actions and situations by determining whether or not they are in harmony with our values as opposed to making moralistic judgments. For instance, rather than saying, “Violence is wrong,” we would say, “I value the resolution of conflicts through safe and peaceful means.” Nonviolent Communication posits that moralistic judgments –thoughts of criticism and blame– are at the root of violence. Judging people as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ leads to anger, and anger often leads to violence. Furthermore, when we judge someone as bad or wrong, we feel justified in acting with violence because we tell ourselves that the person deserves it. For instance, we may think “Terrorists deserve to die.”

• The Protective Use of Force: When someone acts in a way that compromises safety, we use force as a means of protection, but never as punishment. We do not cause suffering so that a person learns a lesson. To bring back social order when it has been broken, nonviolent communication proposes education and restoration as opposed to retribution.
  
• Universal Wisdom: Nonviolent communication is consonant with the highest principles of the great world religions.

The next aspect of nonviolent communication is around language. In order to allow for deeper connection and dialogue with others, two types of supportive language categories are helpful to help deepen self-discovery and to facilitate greater understanding and connection between people: a needs inventory and a feelings inventory. These example lists are neither exhaustive nor definitive.

Photo Source: The Center for Nonviolent Communication. ‘’Feelings Inventory.’’ Accessed October 17, 2022. https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/feelings-inventory.

Feelings when your needs are not satisfied.

Hear from Miriam Attias, Mediator and Trainer for Community for Mediation, on how to utilize non-violent communication and other restorative practices to address local intercommunity tension.

The next aspect is around communication. There are five elements to be conscious of within the process of nonviolent communication. When experiencing disconnection from others, use this list to see if all of your elements are in alignment:

1. Consciousness - Ask yourself: Am I self-connected? Am I expressing myself honestly and vulnerably? Am I listening empathically? Am I valuing the needs of others as my own? Am I committed to seeking solutions that can meet everyone’s needs?
2. Thought - Ask Yourself: Is there judgment or blame in my awareness? Am I angry or resentful in this moment as I engage with the other person?
3. Language - Ask Yourself:  Are my words free of criticism and blame?
4. Communication - Ask Yourself: Is my non-verbal communication or tone of voice and body language congruent with my words?
5. Use of Power - Ask Yourself: Do I want to overpower this person to get what I want? Am I caring about his or her needs as my own? Am I making a request or a demand in disguise? Am I prepared to hear the word no, listen empathically and maintain connection? Am I willing to stay in the dialogue until we find a solution that accommodates both of us? All involved?

Photo Source: Moglich, Harald. “Non-Violent Communication.” https://harald-moeglich.de/en/non-violent-communication/.

Photo Source: Ulmer, Charlee. “Expressing Gratitude Through Non-Violent Communication. https://duckvillageyoga.com/expressing-gratitude-non-violent-communication/.

When living in, and relating from nonviolent communication consciousness we embody the following attitudes:

• Self-Connection: We relate to ourselves and the world from a still place within, a place of compassion, truth, clarity, and peace. To maintain self-connection, nonviolent communication proposes one engages in a daily practice known as "Remembering". Examples of Remembering practices include meditation, prayer, inspirational readings, poetry, inspirational music, and quiet time in nature.
• Honest Expression: We express ourselves vulnerably and without criticism or blame. We reveal our feelings and needs and ask for what we want, without demanding.
• Empathic Presence: We listen to others with a silent mind and an open heart. Our sole purpose is to connect with the speaker by understanding his or her feelings and needs deeply and without judgment. We attempt to remain empathically present even when we are the target of criticism, blame and other such forms of communication.
• Self-Empathy: When we are no longer able to be present to the other person, or when we become angry, we take time out to vent our judgments in the privacy of our minds. We identify and connect with the unmet needs in a given interaction and we mourn the pain of the unmet needs. This process enables us to reconnect with our essence. We use self-empathy also to mourn and heal from disappointment or loss, to celebrate needs met, or simply to understand ourselves more fully. Once we experience an organic shift, we are calmer and have more clarity to address the challenge at hand. We ask ourselves what we can do to fulfill the unmet needs in the situation.
• Use of Power: We attempt to influence others in the context of connection, rather than through coercion. We want others to contribute to us out of natural giving, and never out of fear, guilt, shame, duty, desire for reward, or to buy love. We care about the needs of others as our own, and we are committed to seeking solutions that can meet the needs of all involved.

The final aspect is means of influence. The process of nonviolent communication applies to three dimensions of life:

1. Personal – We employ the nonviolent communication process to liberate ourselves from cultural conditioning; to heal the wounds of life; to transform judgments into understanding of unmet needs; and to transform anger, guilt, shame, depression and fear into life-serving emotions that increase inner peace and inner freedom.
2. Interpersonal – We relate to others with empathy, honesty, mutuality, and care thus increasing trust, understanding, and harmony in relationships.

3. Societal – We live nonviolent communication principles and implement the process in our efforts to contribute to a better world. Our social change work is fueled by gratitude as opposed to anger.

These dimensions are intertwined. Our state of mind and heart influences how we relate to others. How we relate to people can set in motion a chain of actions and reactions that impact society in unforeseen ways – for better or for worse.

Here are ten things you can do to contribute to internal, interpersonal and to organizational peace.

1. Spend some time each day quietly reflecting on how we would like to relate to ourselves and others.
2. Remember that all human beings have the same needs.
3. Check our intention to see if we are as interested in others getting their needs met as our own.
4. When asking someone to do something, check first to see if we are making a request or a demand.
5. Instead of saying what we DON'T want someone to do, say what we DO want the person to do.
6. Instead of saying what we want someone to BE, say what action we'd like the person to take that we hope will help the person be that way.
7. Before agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's opinions, try to tune in to what the person is feeling and needing.
8. Instead of saying "No," say what need of ours prevents us from saying "Yes."
9. If we are feeling upset, think about what need of ours is not being met, and what we could do to meet it, instead of thinking about what's wrong with others or ourselves.

10. Instead of praising someone who did something we like, express our gratitude by telling the person what need of ours that action met.