Bangladeshi students and teachers protest against terrorism in 2016. (AP/Press Association)Countering violent extremism (CVE)—which aims to hinder the recruitment efforts of violent extremists as well as address the conditions that facilitate radicalization—has become an umbrella term encompassing disparate non-coercive responses to terrorism and other forms of ideological violence. This has led many to lament the conceptual confusion of CVE as a field of practice and theory. Certainly, the boundaries between CVE and peacebuilding, international development, or democracy promotion are blurry. However, the nascent effort to introduce the terminology of “preventing violent extremism” (PVE) into the field both clarifies and illuminates the unique role that democracy, rights, and governance (DRG) programs and activities play in impeding the growth of violent ideologies.
The global policy response to terrorism has evolved significantly in both substance and emphasis over the last 15 years. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, governments around the world employed a “kinetic” response to terrorism focused on the military and intelligence communities killing and capturing terrorists. During the Iraq War, the U.S. embraced a more comprehensive response to terrorism that sought to win “hearts and minds” in conjunction with traditional military tactics, an approach that came to be known as counter-insurgency (COIN). Once combating violent political mobilization became a policy priority of the U.S. government, the State Department and Agency for International Development (USAID) led efforts to reframe conventional development goals such as poverty alleviation as components of effective counterterrorism.
