In this research, we separate preventing violent extremism from preventing or interrupting the process of radicalization. The latter is assessed by scrutinizing the similarities and differences between the perceptions of youth and that of radicalized individuals.

Table 3: Youth versus radicalized individuals’ perception of inclusion

Comparing the perception of indicators between Tunisian youth and radicalized individuals concludes with a complete discrepancy leading researchers to estimate that working on youth feeling of inclusion must include radicalized individuals’ perception in any prevention programming. In other words, to prevent radicalization, strengthening youth’s feeling of inclusion must provide:

An education that leads to a gainful employment and that enlighten youth life paths.

• A gainful employment that has a meaningful purpose.
• A civil society that focuses on tangible change supports those in immediate need.
• Politics that implement non-stigmatizing reforms respecting ethics and social norms
• A community that supports youth’s desire for change accentuating on solidarity and a sense of belonging
• Social norms that value Religion without confusing both.

In a second analysis, measuring the degree of importance of each indicator among radicalized individuals informs about the key shifters in the radicalization process.

The in-depth interviews discussions revealed that out of the 6 indicators, interviewees were more enthusiastic to express their thoughts about:

1. Education,
2. Religion,
3. Employment.

This entails the importance of these indicators respectively in radicalizing individuals thus crucial to interrupt the process.

Disengagement through Inclusion

As stated previously, this research focuses on the process of disengagement from violent extremist groups and not the de-radicalization as a whole mechanism. Understanding the perceptions of disengaged individuals and comparing them to those of radicalized individuals inform on ways 112 to support the disengagement process.

Table 4: Radicalized versus disengaged individuals’ perception of inclusion.

When researchers compared the perceptions of indicators among radicalized and disengaged individuals, they came to the conclusion that disengaged individuals still maintain certain notions from their experience with radical groups, prompting researchers to assert that any disengagement efforts focusing on inclusion must adjust to disengaged persons’ perceptions and consistently break with radicalized individuals’ perception.

To amplify the state of skepticism that radicalized individuals experience and support their detachment from violent extremist groups:

• Promote and provide an education that teaches practical
• Promote and provide gainful employment that respects ethics and social
• Promote the protection of social and cultural
• Promote the efficiency of the democratic
• Promote the understanding of individual willingness to reintegrate the society.
• Promote the protection of freedom of thought, conscious, and religion.

In a moment’s investigation, measuring the degree of significance of each indicator among disengaged individuals educates almost the key shifters within the disengagement process. The interviews discourses uncovered that out of the 6 indicators, interviewees were more eager to be precise in their contemplations on:

1. Social acceptance,
2. Religion,
3. Employment.

This involves the significance of these indicators respectively in disengagement hence pivotal to trigger the process.