Policy Responses To Online Radicalization In The Digital Age: Balancing National Security, Digital Governance, and Civil Liberties

Abstract

The growing role of social media as a primary space of political communications has changed the nature of radicalisation and political violence. Organizations and ideologies that used to depend on close physical networks, material resources, and geographic proximity to recruit and mobilize supporters can now be global actors at little or no cost. They do this by exploiting the very design features that make digital platforms commercially successful in maximizing engagement. States, intergovernmental organizations and technology companies have responded with expanding counter-radicalization architectures. Yet such responses often create sharp tensions between state security and democratic freedoms of individuals and communities. The author(s) examine the governance of online radicalization in the digital age using a multi-level framework informed by securitization theory, multi-level governance theory, network theory, and the human security approach. It explores the dynamics and processes of radicalization that occurs digitally, critically scrutinizes the policy reactions from India, the UK, and the USA. It elaborates a normative structure for counter-radicalization governance that respects rights. The evaluation of the study will be qualitative, exploratory in nature, using content analysis and comparative policy analysis based on some literature, primary policy documents, reports of think-tanks and publications of international organizations. The paper finds that the existing solutions are mostly security-focused surveillance initiatives and content regulations for platforms, as well as counter-terrorism regulation while preventive, community-based, and structural responses are neglected. The author asserts that the standard framing of counter radicalization as a security vs liberty trade-off is fundamentally mistaken. Effective counter radicalization depends on the social trust, democratic legitimacy, and community cooperation that intrusive and discriminatory security measures erode. A democratic and rights-based model of digital counter-radicalization governance is operationally superior and normatively needed, the paper argues.