THE global pivot towards the Indo-Pacific represents a significant geopolitical shift, one that is poised to intensify competition over resources in the region, amplifying the risk of violent extremism and terrorism (VE&T)—threats that, while often rooted in ideological motivations, are frequently exploited as tools for social control and manipulation.

Meanwhile, global experience underscores that key internal drivers of terrorism often include interethnic or interfaith tensions and social conflicts, weak responses to organised crime and corruption, and inadequate administrative measures for preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) itself. Regrettably, these shortcomings are also evident in the Malaysian context, akin to how food security issues were overlooked—contrary to global trends—until the pandemic revealed our vulnerabilities.

It is therefore crucial to urgently learn from nations at the forefront of global P/CVE efforts, such as Germany, New Zealand, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—countries that have faced some of the most severe and cynical acts of VE&T in recent history—and align our efforts with global best practices.

A systematic analysis of global P/CVE policies highlights emerging trends (Figure 1), providing valuable insights into the evolving dynamics of VE&T.


via EMIR Research


Overall, there is a discernible shift from the traditional reliance on forceful suppression of VE&T hotspots to a more comprehensive approach. This new approach can be characterised as holistic (utilising the full capacity of the state), proactive, highly collaborative, multi-level, coherent, agile, socio-ecological, and research-driven—highlighting that stopping and reversing the spread of toxic extremist ideologies is a truly herculean task and must be taken seriously.

Countries leading in P/CVE build robust alliances among stakeholders both locally and internationally (T1 in Figure 1). Within nations, P/CVE efforts bring together government bodies, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, civil society, NGOs, educational institutions, healthcare, and community organisations to create a comprehensive, grassroots approach to counter radicalisation. Where local collaborations among statutory partners and law enforcement already exist, they are reinforced rather than replaced to avoid overlap and duplication. Internationally, countries collaborate to share best practices, research, and training resources through organisations like the European Union, United Nations, and Global Counterterrorism Forum, which facilitate joint initiatives, funding, and the exchange of successful strategies. BRICS has now also prioritised P/CVE, working to establish its own framework and networking to further these goals.

A distinctive hallmark among global P/CVE leaders is the adoption of the centre-out approach for national coordination (T2). This method enables a central authority—such as a government body or organisation—to disseminate policies, best practices, and innovations to local communities, institutions, and individuals. By ensuring the uniform implementation of standards while accommodating local adaptations, this approach not only fosters consistency but also sparks grassroots innovation. These locally developed insights are subsequently channelled back to the central authority, where they are integrated and redistributed, creating a dynamic feedback loop that strengthens the system as a whole.

The centre-out approach is particularly effective in tackling intricate and evolving threats like VE&T. Research indicates that extremist organisations often operate within pyramid-like structures characterised by anonymity, autonomy, self-replication, and adaptability. Centre-out approach allows countries to mimic this organisation, while making national P/CVE efforts highly responsive and cohesive in the face of shifting threats.

Another critical trend in global P/CVE efforts is the empowerment of peripheral stakeholders and the strengthening of asset resilience (T3). Peripheral stakeholders—such as local organisations, community groups, private businesses, operators of public spaces, and the general public—are often the first to confront VE&T in its localised forms. Engaging these stakeholders to understand their unique perspectives and equipping them with best practices and standards fosters a sense of inclusion and shared purpose. This ensures communities play an active role in shaping and implementing P/CVE initiatives, building trust and legitimacy. Furthermore, this collaborative approach enriches centralised efforts (as outlined in T2) with critical local insights, enhancing both adaptability and overall effectiveness.

Under this trend, P/CVE leaders also prioritise strengthening the resilience of public spaces and critical infrastructure. This includes implementing enhanced surveillance measures and educating operators of public spaces on best practices in P/CVE, ensuring they are equipped to identify risks and respond effectively.

The next key focus of contemporary P/CVE frameworks is actively countering the spread of extremist ideologies (T4), particularly in the digital domain, where the internet and social media serve as powerful tools for recruitment and radicalisation. Strategies include monitoring online VE&T content, improving digital literacy, and disseminating counter-narratives to challenge harmful messaging.

Importantly, beyond merely shielding the information space from VE&T propaganda, governments and organisations utilise media platforms—including radio, television, and public advertisements—to actively promote anti-VE&T initiatives and reinforce core societal values. These efforts are complemented by proactive engagement with at-risk groups, including individuals from conflict zones, those facing discrimination or identity crises, or inmates exposed to extremist ideologies in prisons.

The most advanced global P/CVE frameworks prioritise youth (T5), weaving this focus across all key trends in Figure 1. This emphasis recognises their vulnerability to extremist messaging, their strategic value to VE&T groups—particularly through their influence on peers—and the crucial need to shape their perspectives with positive, inclusive narratives. For detailed policy recommendations, see EMIR Research's earlier article, “Empowering Malaysia’s Future: A Youth-Centric Approach to P/CVE.”

An absolute cornerstone of effective P/CVE strategies, as reflected in global efforts, is fostering inclusive identities and promoting social cohesion (T6), which involves harmonising relationships across racial, ethnic, religious, social, gender, and national lines. Strengthening these dynamics prevents radicalisation along divisive fault lines and enhances community resilience to various shocks, including VE&T or natural disasters. By advancing narratives of tolerance, mutual respect, and shared security, P/CVE initiatives counter extremist ideologies that exploit divisions, fostering unity and trust within diverse communities.

Recognising that factors such as unemployment, marginalisation, and lack of education often create fertile ground for radicalisation, global P/CVE frameworks focus on tackling the socio-economic drivers (T7), aiming to mitigate grievances that often fuel lone-actor radicalisation or grievance-driven violence, which can be much harder to detect than organised VE&T.

In other words, alongside addressing pull factors (like in T4 & T5), effective approaches also tackle push factors—structural issues that drive individuals toward extremism—by providing alternatives such as education, employment opportunities, and social reintegration. These initiatives not only reduce vulnerabilities but also foster a sense of purpose and belonging, giving individuals tangible reasons to disengage from extremist paths and reinvest in society.

Global P/CVE frameworks increasingly prioritise intelligence, evidence-based approaches, and modern technology (T8) to enhance impact. Research-driven insights and robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, guided by frameworks like Input-Output-Outcome-Impact (as outlined in “Transforming Malaysia from Third- to First-World Country”), ensure clear goals, measurable indicators, and efficient resource allocation. These tools strengthen inter-agency collaboration (crucial for T1 and T2), identify early warning signals, assess risks, and refine disengagement and reintegration strategies. Countries like the Netherlands, Finland, and Germany lead by fostering partnerships across academia, industry, and international organisations to leverage advanced tools and methodologies. This commitment to a constructive evaluation culture not only highlights successful approaches but also identifies limitations, enabling continuous improvement. Ultimately, evidence-based practices mitigate unintended consequences and ensure P/CVE initiatives remain effective, adaptable, and sustainable.

An agile legal framework (T9) is crucial for countering the evolving threats of violent extremism and terrorism. Such frameworks empower law enforcement to prioritise early disruption of planned attacks (such as detaining individuals or blocking harmful online content)—over waiting to gather additional evidence for prosecution—using intelligence, research, and technology (as in T8) to act on early warning indicators. At the same time, they must balance national security with civil liberties, protecting privacy, presumption of innocence, and due process rights. Transparent legislation and fair enforcement ensure accountability and public trust, maintaining an effective yet equitable response to emerging threats.

Realising, the increasing complexities in tackling modern VE&T many countries turn to professionalising P/CVE efforts and developing quality standards (T10). Professionalising P/CVE efforts is essential for ensuring effectiveness, accountability, and adaptability. Standardisation plays a key role, providing clear benchmarks for practices, collaboration, and multi-agency coordination, as well as exposing inefficiencies for improvement.

It is very clear, that to meet growing P/CVE demands, specialised education programmes and joint training initiatives are needed to build a skilled workforce, while fostering cooperation and shared perspectives.

Aligning P/CVE efforts with these trends has allowed leading nations to equip stakeholders with advanced practices, establish holistic exit and reintegration programmes for VE&T, and deliver comprehensive support to victims.

While Malaysia’s recently launched P/CVE framework document remains under wraps, there is optimism that its initiatives will align with global best practices, bolstering national resilience and preparedness for future challenges.




Dr Margarita Peredaryenko and Avyce Heng are part of the research team at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.