Abstract
This article analysed the Indonesian government’s strategy in eradicating terrorism and radicalism. This study was designed with quantitative methods within the framework of normative legal research using anti-terrorism-related regulations as the sample. Data analysis was carried out with content analysis to identify the conception of terrorism, radicalism and deradicalisation in the legislation. The research found that most of Indonesia’s counter-terrorism regulations associate terrorism with criminal actions. However, regulatory developments also present a decreasing association between terrorism and acts of violence alone as terrorism is growingly being conceptualised by policymakers not only as a virulent action to an increasing extent but also ideologically based on the process of radicalisation. Consequently, various regulations after 2013 accommodate many prevention-based ideas and soft approaches. Newest regulations also accommodate deradicalisation as an important strategy in countering terrorism. This finding practically would imply including counter-narratives through education and deradicalisation strategies. It is also projected through counter-propaganda as a strategic deradicalisation approach. Its incorporation into regulations is needed as digital technology advances, making it easier for young people to be exposed to radical ideas through internet channels.
Contribution: This study deepens empirical evidence regarding the need for an alternative soft approach strategy in dealing with religious doctrine-based radicalism. Apart from preventive measures through law enforcement which should be continuously strengthened, the findings in this research encourage preemptive methods in deradicalisation through counter-narrative, counter-propaganda and counter-ideology.
Keywords: content analysis; counter-narrative; deradicalisation; radicalism; terrorism.
Introduction
Terrorism is usually a coordinated attack that aims to inflict terror on a group of people. In contrast to war, acts of terrorism are not governed by war procedures, as the execution of attacks is always sudden, the victims are targeted randomly and civilians are often the targets (Jongman 2017). Terrorism is a form of crime with an international dimension that has a negative effect on national security. The United Nations (UN) conference with the theme ‘Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Prisoners’, which was held in 2000 in Vienna, Austria, explained the definition of terrorism for the first time, which considered terrorism as an extraordinary crime. For this reason, many countries, including Indonesia, consider it necessary to give special treatment to attacks that fall under the criteria of terrorism (Kusuma et al. 2019). Indonesia experienced most lethal attacks of terrorism in the first decade of the 2000s, such as the first and second Bali bombings on 12 October 2002 and 01 October 2005, respectively, and Jakarta’s Marriott Hotel bombing on 05 August 2003. Indonesia has experienced a series of major terrorist attacks carried out by terrorist groups in the last two decades (Erikha & Rufaedah 2019). The terrorist attacks in Indonesia have attracted attention and pressure from the international community to eradicate and find the perpetrators of terrorism. In fact, the UN has issued two resolutions with regard to the terrorist attacks in Indonesia. The first one is Resolution 1438 of 2002 that strongly condemned the Bali bombings and expressed deep condolences and sympathy to the government and people of Indonesia, as well as the victims and their families. The second one is Resolution 1373 of 2002 that called for cooperation, support and assistance to the Indonesian government in arresting and prosecuting all perpetrators associated with the incidents. These all follow the 1945 Constitution implying the Indonesian government to protect its citizens from the threat of domestic and international crimes.
The essence of radicalism is changed; they want drastic changes, especially in social and political systems. Terrorism is a form of crime with an international dimension that is very scary for the community. Acts of terrorism have been carried out in different parts of the world, both in developed and developing countries, and they have targeted victims indiscriminately. As an extraordinary crime, terrorism is a severe concern for many stakeholders to prevent and deal with it through various strategies. This article discusses the Indonesian government’s strategy in eradicating terrorism and radicalism by focusing on the substance of various regulations regarding countering radicalism and terrorism in Indonesia. The analysis in this study was carried out by content analysis.
Previous research has discussed content analysis about counter-terrorism in regulatory aspects (D’Amato & Terlizzi 2022; Nickerson 2019). However, few studies on content analysis focusing on counter-terrorism regulations in Indonesia are available. In this context, this study aims to analyse the ideological content of counter-terrorism regulations, strategies and counter-narratives or counter-propaganda in these various regulations. The aim is to show the extent to which the regulations offer a practical perspective on deradicalisation and what strategies are substantially contained in these various regulations. In addition, this research also seeks to examine the development of counter-propaganda strategies in dealing with terrorism in Indonesia.
This article is presented in several parts. The first part is an introduction focusing on the research’s background, problems and objectives. The second part is a literature review that focuses on the theoretical basis used in the study. The third part describes the research methods, including design, data collection and analysis techniques. The following section is the core of the study, which presents the development of counter-terrorism regulations in Indonesia, as well as describes the paradigm shift in counter-terrorism from a hard approach to a soft approach. Next, quantitative analysis through content analysis is presented to support the findings. Finally, the conclusions are presented along with practical and theoretical implications, limitations and directions for future research.
Literature review
Terrorism and violent radicalisation
Radicalism is a radical political, social or religious view inconsistent with or contrary to usual political, social and religious views, resulting in social, political and inter-religious conflicts or conflicts within the same religion (Gøtzsche-Astrup 2018; Veldhuis & Staun 2009). The root of radicalism is fundamentalism, namely the radicalisation of a community’s religious understanding, which constructs exclusivity (Pfundmair et al. 2022; Suyanto, Sirry & Sugihartati 2022). In addition, radicalism tends to promote terrorism and other acts of violence that are often committed in the name of religion. Their proponents justify their actions as a legitimate means to achieve their specific goals (Borum 2011; Kruglanski et al. 2014).
Terrorism negatively impacts the personal lives of victims, their families and the nation and state. For the families of victims of terrorist atrocities, the psychological impact is very heavy, and the loss of a loved one is a difficult psychological burden to deal with (Kruglanski et al. 2014). Terrorism begins with extremism and radicalism. Radicalism is characterised by anti-tolerant behaviour combined with a high spirit of struggle to change the existing system. Then it moves to the next stage, namely, extremism (McCauley & Moskalenko 2017). Religious extremism is a way of thinking that is increasingly fundamental, by using terror violence as a tool for political struggle. The last stage is terrorism, as the highest point of systematic violence. Islam is not a religion of violence; it is a civilised religion that respects other religions. Although the teachings of Islam reject injustice, violence and terror, and many Muslims love peace and tranquility and reject extremism, radicalism and terrorism, there are some extremist groups within their own religion. The extremists do not recognise plurality and do not value the social diversity that develops in society. The acts of terrorism carried out by extremists and other hard-line groups in the name of religion, often give rise to a dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims (Von Sikorski et al. 2017). Radical groups who claim to be fighting in the name of religion, without reluctance to disbelieve their fellow Muslims just because they have different views, are part of religious extremism. Extremism is an attitude or understanding that is excessive in religion. Religion is applied rigidly and harshly to the point of exceeding reasonableness. Extremism is one of the first steps to radicalism (Darmadi 2021).
Moreover, violent radicalisation is the process of adopting a belief system that promotes violent action. If viewed from a broad sense, radicalisation can take the form of an understanding that emphasises changes in society. To combat radicalisation, Indonesia currently uses a soft-line approach to preventing and dealing with terrorism without putting aside the hard-line approach. It is based on the awareness that the use of violence in overcoming acts of terror does not solve the problem of terrorism at its root. Therefore, countering terrorist acts in Indonesia is done through deradicalisation, which is the realisation of a general approach known as the soft line approach (Golose 2009). The hard approach is perceived by policy makers and law enforcement agencies to be less effective in preventing terror. For this reason, the soft approach, through deradicalisation, has been massively expanded in recent years. In deradicalisation, efforts to change the radical thoughts of terrorist actors are carried out through rehabilitation. Rehabilitation theory states that the punishment of criminals is intended not only as retaliation for harmful acts, but also as a deterrent to prevent similar crimes (Milla, Hudiyana & Arifin 2020).
Hard and soft approach in countering terrorism
The Indonesian government has taken various ways to eradicate terrorism in Indonesia as there are increasing dynamics surrounding the war against terrorism in Indonesia (Price 2022; Tan & Ramakrishna 2004). Until now, official information from the Indonesian authorities regarding terrorist organisations and counter-terrorism efforts has become the most important study for various analyses of terrorism issues at the national and global levels in the academic and mass media fields (Wirantoko & Wahyudi 2018). Terrorism is always associated with the notion of radicalism because, basically, radical groups can do anything to achieve their wishes, including intimidating those who do not agree with their political ideas or religious teachings (McCauley & Moskalenko 2017). Radicalism is an understanding that often uses extreme means, such as public violence, to advance its interests (Snow & Cross 2011).
Preventing the emergence of this radical movement is certainly inseparable from the role of the government. Because the government has the power to issue decisions or policies, especially in terms of eradicating radicalism, in this context, government programmes that are considered capable of dealing with radicalism include short-term programmes and long-term planning such as instilling Pancasila values in formal and non-formal educational institutions, socialising terrorism prevention, introducing and providing an understanding of counter-terrorism (Subagyo 2021). The government, through the Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme (BNPT), has two programmes for eradicating radicalism: deradicalisation and counter-radicalisation.
Countering terrorism in Indonesia is generally carried out through two approaches, namely the hard approach carried out by the Indonesian National Police and the soft approach or preventive approach under the authority of BNPT. Through the second approach, BNPT believes that reducing radicalism does not always require repressive methods, as is the case with the general police. Instead, law enforcement was balanced with preventive actions using a humanitarian approach so as not to create feelings of revenge or new forms of violence (Setiyono 2021). Therefore, BNPT has two programmes in this soft approach: deradicalisation and counter-radicalisation.
In a hard approach strategy, the most familiar agency in combating terrorism in Indonesia is the Special Detachment 88 Anti-Terror (Detasemen Khusus/Densus 88) (Setiyono 2021). It acts as an anti-terrorist unit attached to the Indonesian national police, whose priority is to combat all criminal acts of terrorism. The unit is trained to deal with all acts of terrorism in Indonesia. This unit has the authority to make arrests within 24 h using preliminary evidence from each intelligence report (Bawole 2014). As part of the state police, Densus 88 in carrying out its duties is limited by fixed procedures in carrying out its actions, especially in dealing with terrorists (Takasili 2015). Densus 88 was formed as an anti-terrorist unit to combat all terrorist activities in Indonesia. This unit has police personnel who are experienced in strategies and tactics for eradicating criminal acts of terrorism. In addition, all provinces in Indonesia also have representatives from the Densus 88, known as the regional task force. The function of the regional task force is to detect terrorist activities in each region and arrest perpetrators of criminal acts of terrorism that can threaten national security.
Anti-terrorism regulations in Indonesia
Violence committed by terrorists has a negative impact on the security and peace of a country. Therefore, the government seriously deals with terrorism (Windiani 2017). The Indonesian government has made various efforts and strategies to eradicate terrorism. The laws of the government provide legal protection for its citizens and ensure the eradication of criminal acts of terrorism. Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang/Perpu) No. 1 of 2002 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism is a milestone in counter-terrorism in Indonesia. To meet society’s legal needs and development, it is necessary to make amendments to make it a law. Then, Law No. 1 of 2002 was passed as the first law regulating anti-terrorism in Indonesia. Moreover, Law No. 15 of 2003 was also enacted to strengthen the national security by combating terrorism.
In addition, Law Number 5 of 2018 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism was passed to introduce aspects of simultaneous, planned and integrated prevention in the war on terrorism. Prevention is best done by involving relevant ministries or institutions and all components of the country through national preparedness, counter-radicalisation and deradicalisation efforts coordinated by the National Counterterrorism Agency. Furthermore, Law No. 5 of 2018 confirms that the criminal acts of terrorism that have occurred so far in Indonesia are contrary to the state’s ideology and are included in the crime-heavy, disturbing national security, state sovereignty, human values, and all aspects of social life. Therefore, the eradication of terrorism requires an extraordinary, planned, directed, integrated and sustainable approach based on Pancasila and the Indonesian Constitution.
Regulations regarding the prevention and financing of terrorism are also regulated in Law No. 9 of 2013 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of the Crime of Financing of Terrorism. This law criminalised terrorism financing and obliged banks to report and monitor remittances. Banks are also required to monitor suspicious international transactions, blocking mechanisms, registering individuals and terrorist organisations. To strengthen the implementation, the government has also established BNPT. Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme is a non-ministerial government agency tasked with carrying out government responsibilities in counter-terrorism. Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme was established based on Presidential Regulation No. 46 of 2010 concerning the National Counterterrorism Agency. The task of BNPT is to formulate national policies, strategies and plans in the field of counter-terrorism, coordinate the implementation of policies in the field of counter-terrorism by relevant government agencies, implement policies in the field of counter-terrorism and organise personnel from relevant government agencies who will oversee the responsibilities and functions of each working group.
In addition, in terms of counter-radicalisation, Law No. 5 of 2018 states that the government is obliged to prevent criminal acts of terrorism. Moreover, Law No. 5 of 2018 defines counter-radicalisation as a planned, integrated, systematic and continuous process intended to stop the spread of radical ideas of terrorism. Counter-radicalisation is aimed at people or groups of people who are vulnerable to being exposed to radical ideas of terrorism. It also requires the government to use continuous diligence based on the principle of protecting human rights and the principle of prudence. Therefore, prevention comes from national preparedness, deradicalisation and counter-radicalisation. This provision aims to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of preventing criminal acts of terrorism. Counter radicalism is a programme to prevent radicalisation by targeting civilians with radical views before they commit any crime. The anti-radicalisation narrative is thus a message that prevents civilians from committing violence in the name of religion (Antúnez & Tellidis 2013).
Research method
This study utilised a quantitative analysis to obtain empirical evidence regarding Indonesian government strategies in eradicating terrorism and radicalism. To achieve that goal, this method used is by quantifying the data about the paradigm shift in anti-terrorism laws and regulations. Therefore, the aim of the study is to describe the paradigm shift of the government, police and anti-terrorist agencies in Indonesia in preventing and countering terrorism. To achieve this goal, this research employed a quantitative approach based on analysing strategic counter-terrorism content in various regulations regarding terrorism in Indonesia.
For this reason, various regulations have been compiled with terrorism content. In addition, several laws and regulations regulate ideology, strategies and approaches to deradicalisation. From the aspect of the approach, this research is juridical normative. A normative juridical research focuses on legal literature by examining library materials or secondary data in the form of constitutions, laws and various derivative regulations.
Some sample regulations used in this research are Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang/Perpu) No. 1 of 2002 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism, which is a milestone in counter-terrorism in Indonesia, followed by Law No. 15 of 2003 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism, Law No. 9 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism Financing, Law No. 5 of 2018 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism. Then, from the type of executive regulations, several samples are used as the basis for content analysis, namely Government Regulation No. 99 of 2012 concerning the requirements and procedures for implementing the rights of prisoners, including terrorist actors, Government Regulation No. 77 of 2019 concerning Prevention of Terrorism Crimes and Protection of Investigators, Public Prosecutors, Judges and Correctional Officers, Presidential Regulation No. 46 of 2010 concerning the National Counter Terrorism Agency (BNPT), Presidential Decree (Peraturan Presiden/Perpres) No. 7 of 2021 concerning the National Action Plan for the Prevention and Combating Violent Extremism of Terrorism.
Furthermore, from the technical regulations, several samples of regulations are used, namely the Decree of the Minister of Law and Human Rights M.HH-02.PK.01.02.02 of 2017 concerning Guidelines for Special Penitentiary Work for High-Risk Prisoners, Regulation of the Head of the National Counter Terrorism Agency No. 03/K.BNPT/1/2017 concerning General Guidelines for the Coordination Forum for Prevention of Terrorism and Regulation of the National Counter Terrorism Agency No. 1 of 2021 concerning Coordination of the Implementation of Deradicalisation for Suspects, Defendants and Convicts of Criminal Acts of Terrorism. These samples were collected to underline the legislation’s hierarchical order and highlight these regulations’ ideological, strategic and approach aspects. The details of each sample are presented in Table 1.
| TABLE 1: Selected samples of regulations containing the substance of counter-terrorism. |
The data collection technique used in this research is a literature study, which collects various laws and regulations, documents, literature collections and internet access related to counter-terrorism arrangements in Indonesia (Soekanto & Mamudji 2009). The data analysis technique used in this research is quantitative data analysis with content analysis technique.
Content analysis is a technique used to analyse and understand texts. However, previous studies used content analysis to examine mass media content (Riff, Lacy & Fico 2014; Wimmer & Dominick 2013). The content analysis seeks to objectively, systematically and quantitatively describe the document’s data, which Lasswell (1968) called semantic quantification. Furthermore, the data is presented through selecting certain keywords related to the ideology, strategy and approach of various counter-terrorism regulations to ensure content validity and data analysis.
Results
Hard approach to combating violent terrorism
Ideologies, strategies and approaches can be identified from the various regulations passed. The following description presents the results of several strategies the Indonesian government has implemented and the development of counter-terrorism approaches in the last two decades.
The results found that most of the regulations regarding counter-terrorism in Indonesia associate acts of terror with criminal activities (Table 2). It is reflected in the number of two terms that dominate almost every regulation. However, the findings identified the decreasing association between terrorism and violence, while the relationship between terrorism and radicalism is increasing.
| TABLE 2: Content analysis of ideological terms. |
This, in turn, affects counter-terrorism, which is increasingly humanistic by increasing the role of prevention through deradicalisation and rehabilitation of terror perpetrators. In addition, there is an increasing association in countermeasures from a mostly hard approach in the 2000s to a soft approach through counter-propaganda from 2013 until now (Figure 1).
 |
FIGURE 1: Frequency of use of legal and ideological terms on samples. |
|
Hard approach strategies were used to combat violent and lethal attacks of terrorism. This approach was enacted through anti-terrorism law in the early 2000s when violent attacks took place in many places in Indonesia. Meanwhile, soft approach strategies are now more common by using deradicalisation as an integrated, systematic and continuous process to eliminate radical thought. Deradicalisation is a programme that aims to eradicate ideological thoughts in the minds of those affected by radicalisation, especially those targeting terrorists inside and outside prisons. The purpose of deradicalisation is to assist those individuals holding extremist views to reject their harmful ideologies (Elshimi 2017). This is because of the assumption that acts of radicalism are likely to be based on an understanding of radical ideologies. Radicalism can damage society’s fabric and is contrary to the constitution of the modern nation-state. Because radicalisation starts from a mindset (Ghufron, Suminta & Kusuma 2020; Susilo & Dalimunthe 2019), deradicalisation is used as a counter-terrorism strategy that focuses on combating the potential for radically dangerous thinking and acting aimed at individuals who have been exposed to virulent ideologies. Impressive deradicalisation certainly takes a long time because it also includes a de-ideological process of understanding that has been embedded in the mind before. Therefore, in the long term, deradicalisation is carried out with various positive methods regarding psychology, religion, socio-culture, economy, law and politics (Doosje et al. 2016).
The deradicalisation programme based on Law No. 18 of 2018 targets suspects, defendants, convicts, former terrorist convicts and people or groups exposed to radicalism. The government’s implementation of this deradicalisation is carried out in coordination with various agencies, ministries or institutions concerned with countering terrorism. The deradicalisation goes through several stages in the process. The first is identification and assessment. This stage assesses a person’s role or involvement in a group or network to understand the extent to which the person is exposed to radicalism. The second is rehabilitation. At this stage, a healing process is carried out to reduce the level of one’s exposure to radical ideas (Horgan 2009).
The third stage is re-education. At this stage, a person is motivated and instructed to avoid radical ideas about terrorism. The fourth stage is social reintegration. In this stage, a series of activities enable people with radical perceptions of terrorism to reintegrate into their families and communities. For individuals or groups with a radical perception of terrorism, the deradicalisation programme is carried out through activities such as developing national insight, religious insight and entrepreneurship. However, it is emphasised that deradicalisation through activities that foster national, religious insight and entrepreneurship training is still based on identification and assessment.
The purpose of counter-radicalisation is to stop the spread of radical ideas about terrorism so that these activities target people or groups of people who are vulnerable to the concept of radical terrorism. Implementing counter-radicalisation can be done directly or indirectly through counter-narrative, counter-propaganda or counter-ideology. In implementing this counter-radicalisation, the community can be involved and coordinated by BNPT. Regulations related to counter-radicalisation are regulated in Government Regulation No. 77 of 2019 concerning preventing terrorism crimes and protecting investigators, public prosecutors, judges and correctional officers.
Soft approach strategy and deradicalisation
The content analysis results in Table 3 show that during the 2000s, the Indonesian government adopted a hard-approach policy. As a result, it was more common to use hard-approaching terms such as eradication rather than prevention. At this time, the terms deradicalisation and counter-terrorism have not been used. Over time, there has been a paradigm shift in dealing with terrorism that focuses on prevention, countermeasures and deradicalisation. In addition, deradicalisation is used more in executive and technical regulations than in laws. This shows that deradicalisation in the context of legislation in Indonesia is understood as a technical strategy and counter-terrorism approach.
| TABLE 3: Hard versus soft approach and deradicalisation in the samples. |
The regulations also specified counter-narrative strategies, with the results being shown in Table 4.
| TABLE 4: Counter-narrative strategies in the samples. |
Table 4 shows that radicalism and deradicalisation were not included in various anti-terrorism laws in Indonesia until 2013. However, in Law No. 5 of 2018, the terms radical and deradicalisation have been included as an extension of the legal views of policymakers considering the dangers of radicals and the benefits of deradicalisation. As one of the most important strategies in terrorism, deradicalisation is seen as an effective strategy to prevent terrorism. In addition, deradicalisation is mostly used in executive and technical regulations such as by BNPT. Figure 2 further details the frequency of use of the terms radical and deradicalisation in the samples.
 |
FIGURE 2: The frequency of ‘radicalism’ and ‘deradicalisation’ in the samples. |
|
Furthermore, in the context of counter-narrative, only a few anti-terrorism regulations contain the terms propaganda and counter-propaganda. This term is only included in Presidential Decree No. 46 of 2010 and Presidential Decree No. 7 of 2021. In addition, counter-propaganda strategies are also included in PBNPT No. 3 of 2017. This shows that counter-narratives are still receiving little attention from policymakers. However, policymakers have become aware of the importance of counter-propaganda and the proliferation of digitalisation, which has made it easy for radical ideologies to spread through various media. Presidential Decree No. 7 of 2021 acknowledged the need for counter-narrative strategies as digitalisation has enabled terrorists to spread their virulent transnational ideologies. This condition is supported by the ease with which terrorist groups spread their ideas through various means of communication, both offline meetings and instruments based on information and communication technology, especially online channels via the internet. These methods have proven to be effective in spreading harmful propaganda and extremist ideas aimed at influencing the public to sympathise and support acts of terrorism. Terrorist groups have also been actively and continuously recruiting Indonesian citizens, including women and children, to take part in violent extremism activities that lead to acts of terrorism.
Digital technology has enabled terrorist organisations to spread their harmful ideas more quickly (Nacos 2016). For this reason, several strategies need to be adopted to prevent their efforts. In this context, several strategies can be followed up on the managerial implications of the findings. The first strategy is counter-narrative, including creating and disseminating a narrative of peace messages on social and conventional media platforms, emphasising an understanding of religious and national values. Also, training sessions, seminars and discussions about the dangers of terrorism and the need to embrace peace can also be conducted. Another step of counter-narrative is to conduct research on radicalisation and deradicalisation, as well as to increase various kinds of social activities as a deterrence according to each local wisdom (Syaufi & Zahra 2021).
The second strategy is counter-propaganda. It includes collecting and processing content data related to the propaganda of radical ideology of terrorism. Monitoring and strategic analysis studies are then conducted on the threat of spreading radical understanding content. The third strategy is counter ideology. This strategy includes mapping and strategic studies related to the threat of radical ideology of terrorism that threatens national security. Some strategies that can be carried out include collecting and processing data related to the potential spread of radical ideology of terrorism, strengthening the Pancasila ideology for the community and civil servants, increasing the spirit of defending the state and increasing community resilience-based prevention approaches to minimise the spread of radicalism.
Conclusion
The study findings show that anti-terrorism regulations in Indonesia have focused on countering terrorism and have empowered the relevant authorities and government agencies in tackling radicalism and terrorism. Regarding regulations, Indonesia has sufficient capacity to carry out the prevention and eradication of terrorism. These regulations also reflect the ideology of policymakers, as well as the adoption of strategies and approaches taken from time to time. In general, anti-terrorism regulations in Indonesia have covered various hierarchies of legislation in Indonesia, from legislation to strategic and technical aspects.
The findings also present a decreasing association between terrorism and violence. It shows that policymakers increasingly conceptualise terrorism as not only a deadly act but also ideologically based on the process of radicalisation. As a result, various regulations after the 2010s accommodate many prevention-based ideas and soft approaches. In addition, the newer regulations also accommodate deradicalisation process as an important strategy in countering terrorism. However, it should be noted that Indonesia’s anti-terror regulations still attach acts of terrorism to serious crimes, which is reflected in the high frequency of these two terms in various samples from time to time. The findings also highlight policymakers’ considerations to include counter-narratives through anti-radicalism education and socialisation. In addition, counter-narratives are also projected through counter-propaganda. This approach has recently been incorporated into regulation as digital technology advances.
As practical implications, these findings underscore the importance of socialisation and education for the general public to be involved in the deradicalisation process through practical roles in education. In addition, re-education and rehabilitation strategies are also given to terrorism convicts and their families to perfect the practice of deradicalisation. Finally, policymakers need to update the legislation on anti-terrorism by focusing on the latest developments to combat radicalism in cyberspace.
Although this research finds novelty in its analysis of the development of anti-terrorism ideas in various regulatory hierarchies in Indonesia from time to time, limitations remain. This study used a relatively small number of samples. Because of to the lack of a theoretical basis for content analysis in regulation, the choice of diction may be too broad. For this reason, future research is recommended to analyse various regulations with an increased number of samples and focus on deradicalisation strategies.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
J.S. and S.R. contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing does not apply to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Antúnez, J.C. & Tellidis, I., 2013, ‘The power of words: The deficient terminology surrounding Islam-related terrorism’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 6(1), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2013.765703
Bawole, M.S., 2014, ‘The authority of the densus 88 team in countering terrorism in Indonesia’, Lex Et Societatis 2(1), 114–122.
Borum, R., 2011, ‘Radicalization into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories’, Journal of Strategic Security 4(4), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.4.1
D’Amato, S. & Terlizzi, A., 2022, ‘Strategic European counter-terrorism? An empirical analysis’, European Security 31(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2029847
Darmadi, D., 2021, ‘Peace journalism Dan Moderasi Beragama Dalam Meng-Counter Narasi Radikalisme’, JICOMS: Journal of Islamic Communication and Media Studies 1(1), 53–66.
Doosje, B., Moghaddam, F.M., Kruglanski, A.W., De Wolf, A., Mann, L. & Feddes, A.R., 2016, ‘Terrorism, radicalization and deradicalization’, Current Opinion in Psychology 11, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.008
Elshimi, M.S., 2017, De-radicalisation in the UK prevent strategy: Security, identity, and religion, Routledge, London.
Erikha, F. & Rufaedah, A., 2019, ‘Dealing with terrorism in Indonesia: An attempt to deradicalize, disengage and reintegrate terror inmates with a social psychology approach’, in M.M. Aslam & R. Gunaratna (eds.), Terrorist rehabilitation and community engagement in Malaysia and Southeast Asia, pp. 131–138, Routledge, London.
Ghufron, M.N., Suminta, R.R. & Kusuma, J.H., 2020, ‘Knowledge and learning of interreligious and intercultural understanding in an Indonesian Islamic college sample: An epistemological belief approach’, Religions 11(8), 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11080411
Golose, P.R., 2009, Deradikalisasi Terorisme Humanis, soul approach dan Menyentuh Akar Rumput, Yayasan Pengembangan Kajian Ilmu Kepolisian, Jakarta.
Gøtzsche-Astrup, O., 2018, ‘The time for causal designs: Review and evaluation of empirical support for mechanisms of political radicalisation’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 39, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.003
Horgan, J., 2009, ‘Deradicalization or disengagement? A process in need of clarity and a counter-terrorism initiative in need of evaluation’, Revista de Psicología Social 24(2), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347409788041408
Jongman, A.J., 2017, Political terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories, and literature, Routledge, London.
Kruglanski, A.W., Gelfand, M.J., Bélanger, J.J., Sheveland, A., Hetiarachchi, M. & Gunaratna, R., 2014, ‘The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest impacts violent extremism’, Political Psychology 35(Suppl. 1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12163
Kusuma, A.J., Warsito, T., Surwandono, S. & Muhammad, A., 2019, ‘Indonesia and the threat of terrorism in the analysis of the immaterial dimension’, Sosiohumaniora 21(3), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v21i3.21142
Lasswell, H.D., 1968, ‘The uses of content analysis data in studying social change’, Social Science Information 7(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901846800700104
McCauley, C. & Moskalenko, S., 2017, ‘Understanding political radicalization: The two-pyramids model’, American Psychologist 72(3), 205. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000062
Milla, M.N., Hudiyana, J. & Arifin, H.H., 2020, ‘Attitude toward rehabilitation as a key predictor for adopting alternative identities in deradicalization programs: An investigation of terrorist detainees’ profiles’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology 23(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12380
Nacos, B., 2016, Mass-mediated terrorism: Mainstream and digital media in terrorism and counter-terrorism, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Nickerson, C., 2019, ‘Media portrayal of terrorism and Muslims: A content analysis of Turkey and France’, Crime, Law and Social Change 72(5), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09837-6
Pfundmair, M., Wood, N.R., Hales, A. & Wesselmann, E.D., 2022, ‘How social exclusion makes radicalism flourish: A review of empirical evidence’, Journal of Social Issues, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12520
Price, M., 2022, ‘The long way round: How the war on terror influenced the politics of international legitimacy and Indonesia’s military action in Aceh’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2022.2089398
Riff, D., Lacy, S. & Fico, F., 2014, Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research, Routledge, London.
Setiyono, J., 2021, ‘Regulatory strategies and legal issues for countering terrorism in Indonesia’, Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 24(1), 1–9.
Snow, D.A. & Cross, R., 2011, ‘Radicalism within the context of social movements: Processes and types’, Journal of Strategic Security 4(4), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.4.5
Soekanto, S. & Mamudji, S., 2009, Normative legal research: A brief overview, PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Subagyo, A., 2021, ‘The implementation of the pentahelix model for the terrorism deradicalization program in Indonesia’, Cogent Social Sciences 7(1), 1964720. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.1964720
Susilo, S. & Dalimunthe, R.P., 2019, ‘Moderate Southeast Asian Islamic education as a parent culture in deradicalization: Urgencies, strategies, and challenges’, Religions 10(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10010045
Suyanto, B., Sirry, M.I. & Sugihartati, R., 2022, ‘Pseudo-radicalism and the deradicalization of educated youth in Indonesia’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 45(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2019.1654726
Syaufi, A. & Zahra, A.F., 2021, ‘The existence of customary law: Badamai’, Customary Law Research Horizon 1(3), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.54518/rh.1.3.2021.94-99
Takasili, N., 2015, ‘The function and position of detachment 88 in combating criminal acts of terrorism according to Indonesian positive law’, Lex Crimen 4(8), 38–43.
Tan, S.S. & Ramakrishna, K., 2004, ‘Interstate and intrastate dynamics in Southeast Asia’s war on terror’, The SAIS Review of International Affairs 24(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2004.0022
Von Sikorski, C., Schmuck, D., Matthes, J. & Binder, A., 2017, ‘“Muslims are not terrorists”: Islamic state coverage, journalistic differentiation between terrorism and Islam, fear reactions, and attitudes toward Muslims’, Mass Communication and Society 20(6), 825–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1342131
Veldhuis, T. & Staun, J., 2009, Islamist radicalisation: A root cause model, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, The Hague.
Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick, J.R., 2013, Mass media research, Cengage learning, Boston, MA.
Windiani, R., 2017, ‘Indonesia’s role in fighting terrorism’, Jurnal Ilmu Sosial 16(2), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.14710/jis.16.2.2017.135-152
Wirantoko, D. & Wahyudi, B., 2018, ‘Counter narrative strategy of terrorism mitigation National Agency in Preventing Terrorism through online media’, Journal of Strategic and Global Studies 1(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.7454/jsgs.v1i1.1003
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
