Page 69 - Cyber Terrorism and Extremism as Threat to Critical Infrastructure Protection

MILE ŠIKMAN: RADICALIZATION AS A CAUSE OF TERRORISM – THE CASE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

no exception). Radicalization can manifest itself in the form of physical violence, in systems
(including laws, regulations, etc.) and the broader denial of rights. It is largely context-specific
and, therefore, subject to local driving factors which contributes to the challenge of establish-
ing a common definition” (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2015: 3). The
European Union determines radicalization as “a phased and complex process in which an indi-
vidual or a group embraces a radical ideology or belief that accepts, uses or condones violence,
including acts of terrorism within the meaning of the Directive on combating terrorism, to
reach a specific political or ideological purpose” (European Commission, n.d.). The Council
of Europe (2016) Guidelines for Prison and Probation Services Regarding Radicalization and
Violent Extremism define violent extremism “as behaviour promoting, supporting or commit-
ting acts which may lead to terrorism and which are aimed at defending an ideology advocating
racial, national, ethnic or religious supremacy. This may include the violent opposition to core
democratic principles or values. Radicalization to violence is the dynamic process whereby an
individual increasingly accepts and supports violent extremism. Indicators of violent extrem-
ism exist. These are evidence-based behaviours that reveal an increasing commitment to an
ideology that supports the use of violence, the increasing intention to act in a violent manner
to achieve ideological goals and/or actual participation in unlawful violent action in support of
political, religious, social or other ideological objectives’’ (Council of Europe, 2016, p 9). Fi-
nally, it is worth mentioning the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which
has embraced the concept of terrorist radicalization to mean “a process whereby an individual
comes to accept terrorist violence as a possible, perhaps even legitimate, course of action”
(Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE], 2014, p 21).

In order to answer the question of radicalization as a cause of terrorism, taking into account
the above points, we may conclude that there are three common denominators related to the
concept of radicalization. First, we agree that radicalization is an individual and systemic,
social-psychological process consisting of adopting particular attitudes and beliefs based on
extremist views. As such, this process has its own timeline: the moment when it occurs, the
time of manifestation and the phase when it ends (cf., Borum, 2012c, p 58). Terrorist radical-
ization is a dynamic process: it may be accelerated, possibly slowed down and in some cases
reversed (OSCE, 2014, p 37). However, this is not a linear process; the transition from one
stage to the next is individual and depends on a number of circumstances. In this case, the
focus is on those conceptualizations of radicalization that see it as a cognitive process of in-
creasing adherence to radical views which is then implicitly or explicitly tied to involvement
in terrorism (Schuurman and Taylor, 2018, p 13). Specifically, many individuals may have
radical ideas, but the vast majority of them never act on them (Moskalenko and McCauley,
2009, p 257; Borum, 2012a, p 2). The transition from radical to terrorist is often a matter of a
number of circumstances, which is why, according to Brian Jenkins, there is no easily identifi-
able terrorist-prone personality, nor is there a single path to radicalization (Jenkins, 2010, p
7). The key difference is the adoption of views that violence is a justifiable way of achieving
goals. Following the model used by Sophia Moskalenko and Clark McCauley, we can draw
a distinction between an individual’s willingness to engage in legal and non-violent political
action (activism), and an individual’s willingness to engage in illegal and violent political
15
action (radicalism) (Moskalenko and McCauley, 2009). In this sense, we are discussing ter-
15 Sophia Moskalenko and Clark McCauley published a paper in 2009 entitled Measuring Political Mobilization:
The Distinction Between Activism and Radicalism, which addressed willingness to participate in legal and non-
violent political actions in relation to willingness to participate in illegal or violent political actions. They reached
the conclusion that a smaller number of radical activists have the intention or willingness to pursue their goals by
violent means (Moskalenko and McCauley, 2009, p 257).

69