Sommers Writes on Rethinking Extremism: Why “More of the Same” Isn’t Working
A new report titled “Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism? An Assessment” by Marc Sommers, Affiliated Researcher at the Pardee School’s African Studies Center, is prompting a critical reassessment of one of the world’s primary approaches to addressing violent extremism. Co-authored with Mai Nasrallah for the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), the report examines whether widely adopted P/CVE (Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism) strategies are effectively responding to the growing threat posed by violent extremist organizations (VEOs). As Sommers explains, the study “contrasts what VEOs do with how P/CVE actors respond” while also taking “a hard look at the nature and reach of governance in countries where VEOs and P/CVE actors operate.”
The findings raise fundamental concerns about the effectiveness of both hard and soft approaches to extremism. Traditional counter-terrorism strategies, often focused on targeting militant leaders, have frequently failed to produce lasting results, as extremist groups adapt and reorganize.
At the same time, P/CVE initiatives, which emphasize prevention, community engagement, and development, face their own limitations. “More of the same responses to VEOs won’t work,” Sommers writes, pointing to the sophistication of extremist groups, which exploit governance failures, manipulate youth grievances, and operate across illicit economies. The result, the report argues, is a field that “rests on uncertain ground” and requires significant rethinking.
A key contribution of the report is its focus on the broader political environments in which these strategies unfold; an area central to Sommers’s long-standing research in Africa and other regions. The authors emphasize that P/CVE actors often operate in partnership with governments that may themselves contribute to instability and marginalization. This creates a paradox in which efforts to prevent extremism are constrained by the very systems they rely on. As Sommers notes in his accompanying commentary, “in order to counter or prevent violent extremism, P/CVE actors often have to align themselves with the main contributors to the conditions that can lead to violent extremism.” This insight is particularly relevant in regions such as West Africa, where governance challenges have facilitated the expansion of groups like Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM).
The report also highlights persistent challenges in defining and evaluating P/CVE efforts. Ambiguities around key terms, combined with weak program evaluation frameworks, make it difficult to determine what actually works. Many initiatives are not designed to measure whether they prevent or counter extremism at all, limiting their long-term impact and accountability. In response, Sommers and Nasrallah call for a more rigorous and targeted approach, grounded in a clearer understanding of how extremist organizations operate and why they succeed.
Ultimately, “Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism? An Assessment” calls for a shift in both policy and practice. Rather than relying on existing models, the authors urge policymakers to confront difficult questions about strategy, governance, and effectiveness. With violent extremist organizations continuing to expand globally, Sommers’s research underscores the urgency of rethinking international responses—and the importance of grounding them in both empirical evidence and local realities.