REHABILITATION COUNTRY PROFILES
A long history
Unlike many other European countries, Germany’s efforts towards combatting extremism predate 9/11, due to the historic presence of extreme right-wing actors in the wake of the Nazi movement. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was an increase in the number of right-wing groups, which had become more skilful at evading detection. The 1980 Oktoberfest bombing, resulting in 13 fatalities and several injuries indicated the continuing presence of neo-Nazi militia in Germany. Following the reunification of Germany in 1991, far-right activity continued to rise, with a recorded surge of approximately 4,000 acts of right-wing violence in 1992 and 1993.
Efforts to combat extremism in Germany can be traced back to the late 1980s, when the Federal Domestic Intelligence Service initiated a program to facilitate the social re-entry of former members of the left-wing terrorist group Red Army Faction.
Efforts to counter extremism
After Germany’s reunification in 1990, there was a significant increase in far-right violence targeting refugees, asylum seekers, Communists and government institutions. In response, the Federal Government allocated substantial funding between 1992 and 1997 for civil society projects in areas with high levels of violence in the newly united East German Bundesländer to address the escalating issue of far-right extremism in those regions. A non-governmental exit program for neo-Nazis was established, and the Federal Domestic Intelligence Service subsequently created its own hotline in 2001. Since then, several German states have implemented their own governmental deradicalisation programs.
The increasing number of extremist crimes, including those committed by far-right groups, and the return of fighters from conflict zones like Syria and Iraq have heightened public awareness about the importance of deradicalisation. The presence of ‘homegrown’ extremism in Germany and Europe calls for a shift away from securitisation in order to resist Islamist attacks. Since 2012, the German authorities have allocated increased funding to comprehensive initiatives that primarily target the social environment of jihadist extremists. These initiatives have evolved over time to become one of the most diverse collections of projects aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism in existence.
A European exception
Germany’s counter-extremism infrastructure stands out an exception in Europe, being characterised by a significant degree of decentralisation within a hybrid model involving both non-governmental and state actors working locally, drawing from their own experiences rather than top-down direction from government. Similarly, German programmes tend to draw upon practical experience from social work, rather than being designed upon the basis on academic research and advice.
The federal structure of Germany means that the Bundesländer (federal states) hold considerable level of responsibility, although funding for non-governmental efforts, even at the municipal level, mostly originates from Berlin. Other European countries have typically chosen either a more centralized top-down approach or have delegated decision-making, coordination, and agenda-setting to local communities and NGOs.
The result is that Germany has developed the most diverse and comprehensive arrays of programmes worldwide over the past thirty years – largely due to the lack of state-level direction until 2016. This provided space for innovative NGOs to take individual approaches based upon their own understandings of radicalisation.
The Federal Strategy of 2016
The Federal Government Strategy to Prevent Extremism and Promote Democracy, launched in 2016, adopts a multi-ideology approach focusing on right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism, anti-Semitism, Islamist extremism, Islamophobia and other group-related hate, including homophobia and transphobia.
Far-right extremism is the dominant target ideology, constituting over 60% of all initiatives, while around a third focus on Islamist extremism. The number of active projects and programs has more than doubled over the past decade, indicating the significant impact of increased funding as much as increasing demand on the services. Federal funding for counter-radicalisation programs, excluding state-level funding, rose from 42.8 million euros in 2015 to 147.7 million euros in 2019, peaking at 151.3 million euros in 2018. Funding for deradicalisation programs specifically increased twenty-five times, from 300,000 euros in 2015 to 7.5 million euros in 2020. The combination of a developed NGO system with increasing state support has led a hybrid model, involving both governmental and non-governmental actors within a diverse and regionally differentiated landscape.
The process of deradicalisation
The deradicalisation process typically begins with social diagnostics, which use individual interviews to gather information about the client, their environment, and their circumstances. The next step is a collaborative goal-setting process, where the client’s needs and goals are identified. The client plays a crucial role in determining the direction of the assistance, whether it involves ideological debates, socio-economic support or addressing psychological elements of their radicalisation. Building a strong relationship and trust between the practitioner and the client is the bedrock of deradicalisation work. Practitioners emphasize the importance of maintaining long-term support, even after the client’s life situation has stabilised, in order to provide ongoing assistance and serve as a lifeline in case they face challenges or relapse into the extremist milieu. The duration of support can vary, lasting between two and five years or even longer, depending on the individual’s needs and their progress.
EXIT-Deutschland & HAYAT
EXIT-Deutschland, a programme aimed at helping individuals leave extremist groups, was founded in 2000 by criminologist Bernd Wagner and former neo-Nazi leader Ingo Hasselbach. Due to its longevity, it is likely to be one of the most seasoned and devleoped programmes in deradicalisation and exit assistance. It provides counselling, multi-agency services and public education and has achieved very successful outcomes, claiming a recidivism rate of just 3% from approximately 500 completed cases. The EXIT-Deutchland model serves as a model for HAYAT, which assists individuals in leaving Islamist terrorist groups with a similar approach. The concept of ‘exit’ goes beyond simply leaving a group; it involves challenging the underlying ideology and motives through a process of critical reflection. These programmes also emphasize family counselling and support.
Unlike intervention programs, EXIT-Deutschland and HAYAT allow individuals who wish to leave extremist groups to contact them confidentially, rather than through referral. HAYAT in particular has worked closely with family counselling, recognising the impact of family upon people growing up in families with a history of recent immigration, and often from cultures which value familial solidarity. Both are part of the ZDK Society Democratic Culture network. EXIT-Deutschland relies on donations and government grants, while HAYAT is directly funded by the German Federal Office for Immigration and Refugee Affairs.
Another programme, Violence Prevention Network (VPN) exists to deradicalise extremist offenders. Initially focusing on young individuals at risk of right-wing extremism, its efforts have expanded to address the challenges posed by returning Islamist fighters. High-risk cases involve intensive two-on-one training, often mandated by court order, while less serious offenders can access a voluntary programme. Their method is based in an ‘education of responsibility’ which involves a thorough investigation into offender biographies to identify radicalisation points.
Family counselling
The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge) initiated a nationwide counselling hotline for relatives of Islamic extremists, working in collaboration with non-governmental counsellors. Many other German states have adopted a similar approach and created their own prevention networks. The counselling approach commences when a family member of a radicalised individual initiates contact with a government operative. It is widely believed to be highly effective, based on the consistent level of demand and the substantial number of cases referred. From January 2012 to September 2020, the hotline received over 4,000 calls, leading to 3,061 counselling cases. These numbers suggest that government-led public-private partnerships can be regarded as reliable and credible sources of support for families and communities dealing with Islamist radicalisation.
Focus on prevention
The majority of programmes in Germany prioritise primary prevention and are implemented in school settings. Around 85% of the programmes surveyed in 2018 focussed upon primary prevention. These involve activities like awareness raising, capacity building, and youth work. Around half of all programmes work on secondary prevention, targeting individuals at risk or in the early stages of radicalisation. Tertiary prevention is undertaken by approximately 35% of the programs.
Since the early 2000s, prevention and intervention programs in schools have involved former extremists, initially those who had left the far-right, but have since diversified to reflect the changing landscape of extremism. The demand for such interventions has significantly increased, aided by the availability of financial resources. Deradicalisation programs, in the strict sense, constitute only 6% of the programs due to the legal, professional, and public complexities involved. Around 77% directly address individuals affected by radicalisation and extremism. Family members of radicalised persons account for 25% of the focus. Most of the programmes provide support to professionals, such as teachers and psychologists, when they encounter cases of radicalisation. Most programmes encompass social environment support, counselling for those at risk or partially radicalized, exit support and stabilization, and deradicalisation efforts within prisons.
Challenges
The German landscape faces several challenges due to the lack of a national coordinating body and strategic guidance, resulting in gaps in programme coverage. Online and interactive projects, as well as efforts targeting left-wing extremism and gender-sensitive programs, are currently under-represented in an environment where online radicalisation is an increasing threat. Additionally, the involvement of security agencies raises concerns about the securitisation of the field. The lack of long-term and structural funding for non-governmental actors further exacerbates the situation. Disparities in training and expertise among practitioners stem from a lack of standardized qualifications and evaluations.