Preventing Extremism in Polarized Democracies
In March 2025, Tamima Nibras Juhar went to work at a child welfare institution in Oslo expecting nothing more than an ordinary day. Instead, the 20-year-old became the victim of a racially motivated murder that touched the heart of Norway. A young woman with her whole life ahead of her, taken from us far too soon.
This tragedy did not emerge from nowhere. It is part of a broader picture of increasing polarisation that many Western societies including Norway are experiencing. Research shows that resistance to gender equality is growing among some young men. Debates about LGBTQ+ rights have become more heated. Attitudes toward immigration have hardened in certain segments of society. These are complex trends that require careful attention.
When societies face such challenges, hatred finds expression and violence occurs, our institutions must respond thoughtfully. But how? How do we prevent extremism while strengthening the democratic values we hold dear? balance security with the preservation of liberty? And ensure that our efforts to protect society also respect the principles that make our society worth protecting?
As our country continues to develop thoughtful approaches to preventing radicalisation and violent extremism, we can learn from the experiences of other democracies while charting our own path based on Norwegian values and traditions.
Understanding How Modern States Approach Security
There is a concept that helps us understand how democratic states approach these challenges. It is called administrative criminology and it represents an evolution in how governments think about crime and security. Traditional criminology asks why people commit crimes, seeks to understand root causes like poverty, inequality, trauma, exclusion. Administrative criminology asks a different set of questions, how we can manage crime more efficiently, reduce opportunities for offending and make our systems work better. Both approaches have value and together they help us develop more comprehensive responses.
When this way of thinking is applied to terrorism and extremism, the focus expands from responding after crimes occur to also considering how we might intervene earlier. Democracies begin to think about what scholars call the “pre-criminal space” – areas where early engagement might prevent problems from developing. This means identifying individuals who might be vulnerable to extremist influences, assessing what support they might need and offering appropriate interventions by using a range of tools including administrative measures alongside criminal laws to protect society. And it means involving various parts of society in this important work, asking teachers, healthcare workers and social workers to contribute their expertise in identifying those who might need support.
Administrative approaches to counter-radicalisation can be understood as frameworks where states use a variety of tools working alongside criminal law to identify and support people who might be vulnerable to extremism with the goal of preventing harm through early engagement. This reflects a commitment to both protection and care that characterises the best of democratic governance.
The Critical Shift: From Experience to Knowledge
Behind all our efforts to prevent extremism lies a deeper question: How do we know what works? How can we be confident that our interventions are helping rather than harming?
For too long, counter-radicalisation work has relied primarily on random experience and observation. Practitioners have done their best based on what they have seen and learned through practice. This is valuable but it has limitations. What works in one context may not work in another. What looks like success today may reveal problems tomorrow. And without systematic methods, we cannot reliably distinguish between effective approaches and those that merely feel right. This is why a fundamental shift is needed that is moving from experience-based work to knowledge-based work. Moving from observation to science. Moving from trial and error to systematic understanding.
The science of radicalisation offers this possibility. By understanding radicalisation as a dynamic cognitive process as something that can be studied systematically, measured carefully and understood deeply, we can begin to develop methods that have real operational value.
One right method, grounded in scientific understanding, has more value than a library of millions of research papers that describe problems without offering solutions. Description alone does not prevent violence. Understanding alone does not save lives. What matters is whether we can translate knowledge into action, whether we can develop approaches that actually work in the real world.
This is not an argument against research. It is an argument for research that serves practice for closing the gap between those who study problems and those who solve them to build bridges between theory and action. When we understand radicalisation scientifically, identify its drivers, map its pathways, recognise its indicators and understand the “system dynamic” of algorithm we can intervene earlier and more effectively to support those who are vulnerable, protect those who are at risk and prevent tragedies before they occur. This is the promise of knowledge-based work that Norway, with its strong research traditions and commitment to evidence-based policy is well-positioned to fulfil.
Learning from International Experience
Democracies around the world are developing approaches to these challenges. By examining their experiences, we can identify practices that might inform Norway’s own thoughtful development.
Supporting Frontline Professionals
In the United Kingdom, authorities have developed frameworks to help professionals in education, healthcare and social services contribute to preventing extremism. The intention is to build on the existing expertise of these professionals, who already work to support vulnerable individuals in many contexts. Teachers who know their students well are well-positioned to notice when young people might be struggling or being influenced by harmful ideas. Doctors and nurses who care for their patients holistically can identify when someone might need additional support. Social workers who build trusting relationships with families can offer help when it is most needed.
Researcher Azeem Kaleem has studied how such frameworks operate. Professionals who already have responsibilities to safeguard children and vulnerable adults are asked to extend this safeguarding mindset to include awareness of extremism risks. This builds on existing professional values and practices. The language of safeguarding is important. It emphasises support rather than surveillance, care rather than control. When professionals are trained to recognise signs that someone might be vulnerable to extremist influences, they are being equipped to offer help, not to punish. This framing reflects the best traditions of professional practice.
Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
Democracies have also developed legal frameworks that allow for proportionate responses to serious threats while protecting fundamental rights. In the United Kingdom, for example, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures represent an effort to create a legal framework that addresses genuine security concerns while including important safeguards.
These measures can include conditions such as residence requirements or restrictions on association, but they are subject to regular review and oversight. They represent an attempt to find a balance between protecting society and respecting individual rights – a balance that all democracies must continuously work to maintain.
Supporters of such approaches note that sometimes there are situations where someone may pose a genuine threat but where criminal prosecution is not possible, perhaps because evidence cannot be disclosed without compromising intelligence sources. In such cases, democracies need carefully designed frameworks that allow for proportionate responses while maintaining robust protections. The key is ensuring that such frameworks include strong safeguards: regular judicial review, rights of appeal, clear criteria for imposition and sunset clauses that prevent indefinite restrictions. When these safeguards are present, administrative measures can be part of a balanced approach to security.
Bringing Different Perspectives Together
A third area of interest is multi-agency collaboration. In many countries, panels bring together police, local authorities, educators, social workers, and health professionals to assess situations and design appropriate responses. This reflects an understanding that complex challenges require diverse expertise.
Research on similar arrangements in Nordic countries shows that different professionals bring valuable perspectives. Police officers contribute understanding of security considerations. Social workers offer insight into vulnerability and support needs. Teachers share knowledge of educational contexts. Health professionals bring expertise on mental health. When these perspectives are brought together respectfully, more holistic responses emerge.
Charlotte Heath-Kelly’s research on multi-agency work in Britain and Norway shows that effective collaboration requires mutual respect among different professional groups. It requires creating spaces where all voices are heard and valued. It requires recognising that security and welfare are not competing priorities but complementary dimensions of public good.
Considering All Dimensions of Impact
When we evaluate approaches to preventing extremism, it is important to consider their full range of effects. Researchers who study social harm remind us that we must look beyond immediate security outcomes to understand broader impacts on communities and society.
This means considering how different communities experience security measures. It means listening carefully when communities express concerns about feeling stigmatised or unfairly targeted. It means being willing to adjust approaches when evidence suggests they are having unintended negative consequences.
Researchers Kajsa Dinesson and Francesca Soliman have contributed valuable insights in this area. They encourage us to ask important questions: Do our approaches affect trust between communities and public institutions? Do they influence whether people feel comfortable seeking help from authorities? Do they affect social cohesion more broadly?
These are not questions to be asked once and forgotten. They require ongoing attention, continuous dialogue with affected communities and willingness to learn and adapt. This is what responsible governance looks like in a democratic society.
Alice Finden offers a historical perspective that enriches our understanding. She shows that today’s security discussions echo earlier debates about governance and inclusion. Understanding this history helps us ensure that our approaches reflect our contemporary values and commitments to equality and dignity for all.
Principles for Thoughtful Governance
Drawing on international experience and Norwegian values, several principles can guide the continued development of our approaches.
First, responses should be “thoughtfully calibrated” to the situations they address. This means considering less intensive options before more intensive ones. It means tailoring interventions to individual circumstances rather than applying generic approaches. It means building in regular review to ensure that measures remain appropriate as situations evolve.
For Norway, this principle reflects our tradition of individualised assessment and careful consideration. It means ensuring that our responses are proportionate and targeted.
Second, “strong procedural safeguards” are essential. People should know the basis for any decisions affecting them. They should have meaningful opportunities to have their views heard. There should be independent oversight of decisions. And there should be regular review of all measures. Norway’s strong legal traditions and commitment to rule of law provide a solid foundation for such safeguards. Building on this foundation ensures that our approaches reflect our deepest values.
Third, “genuine partnership” with communities strengthens all our work. When communities are involved in shaping approaches, those approaches are more likely to be effective and legitimate. When concerns are heard and addressed, trust is maintained.
This means creating ongoing dialogue with diverse communities. It means being open to feedback and willing to adjust. It means recognising that communities are partners in keeping society safe, not subjects of suspicion.
Fourth, “honest evaluation” of all measures is necessary. This means looking at both intended effects and any unintended consequences. It means being willing to learn from experience and make changes when needed. It means being transparent about what we know and what we are still learning.For Norway, with our strong research traditions and commitment to evidence-based policy, this principle reflects who we are as a society.
Norway’s Path Forward
Norway has distinctive strengths to build on like high levels of social trust, strong public institutions, deep commitment to human rights and a tradition of inclusive dialogue. These are not obstacles to effective approaches to extremism. They are foundations on which good approaches can be built.
The experiences of other democracies offer useful insights without determining our path to learn from what has worked well elsewhere while adapting it to Norwegian circumstances along with informed challenges others have faced while developing our own solutions.
The tragic death of Tamima Nibras Juhar reminds us why this work matters. A young woman is gone, family mourns as community reflects. Our response must honour her memory by strengthening the values that make Norway the society of inclusion, trust, democracy and respect for human dignity.
This is not about choosing between security and liberty. It is about recognising that in a healthy democracy, security and liberty reinforce each other. People who feel included and respected are more likely to trust institutions and cooperate with authorities. Institutions that act fairly and proportionately earn the trust that makes their work possible.
Norway’s path forward involves building on our strengths, learning from others and remaining true to our values. It is a path of thoughtful adaptation, not radical transformation to reflect who we are as a society and who we aspire to be.
Most importantly, it is a path grounded in knowledge rather than assumption, in science rather than speculation, in systematic understanding rather than isolated experience. One right method, one well-designed approach, one evidence-based intervention has more value than libraries of research that describe problems without solving them. Our commitment must be to develop such methods that is approaches of genuine operational value that can actually prevent radicalisation, support vulnerable individuals and keep our communities safe.
This is the work before us. It is demanding work, but it is also hopeful work. Because when we understand radicalisation scientifically, we can respond to it effectively. When we move from observation to knowledge, we move from reacting to preventing. And when we prevent, we are protected.
