violence-as-politics
Violence as Politics
Collective Violence and Contentious Politics
Collective violence signifies public, discontinuous claims affecting interests of involved parties.
Not all contentious politics leads to violence; the focus is on when contention becomes violent.
Governments play various roles: claimants, targets, and mediators in such conflicts.
Government and Violence
Government actions often dictate the level of violence; weak governments often see increased interpersonal violence.
Strong governments generally reduce civilian violence; they maintain control through police, military, and laws.
Distinction between force (legitimate) and violence (illegitimate) is contested and complex, particularly in interactions with governmental authority.
The Continuum of Force and Violence
The boundary between legitimate force and illegitimate violence is debated; context affects perceptions.
Historical examples include debates about police behavior and military conduct against civilians.
Government actions, including policing and military intervention, can blur these distinctions during contentions.
Political Contexts and Actors
The Role of Political Actors
Diverse political actors include government agents, polity members, challengers, and external forces.
Political identities form around boundaries, relationships, and narratives, influencing actions and recognition struggles.
Regimes differentiate between recognized political groups and those excluded from power, affecting violence.
Political Entrepreneurs and Specialists
Political entrepreneurs organize networks to capitalize on violence or political recognition, often influencing collective violence outcomes.
Specialists in violence include soldiers, police, and non-state actors, whose existence and actions are crucial in shaping violent encounters.
Impact of Governance on Violence
Regime type significantly affects the nature and intensity of violence; low-capacity, undemocratic regimes often experience higher violence.
High-capacity regimes control resources more effectively, limiting violence but potentially using state force against rivals.
Democratic regimes tend to mitigate violence, fostering nonviolent avenues for claims but can still employ violence against external or internal adversaries.
Variability of Violence among Regimes
Regime Variations
Governments vary in capacity (control over resources and activities) and the degree of democracy, affecting potential violence.
High-capacity undemocratic regimes may show both state-directed violence and instances of collective violence.
Low-capacity regimes may lack sufficient control, leading to higher incidences of violence among non-state actors.
Collective Violence Dynamics
Collective violence dynamics hinge on prescribed and tolerated performances within a regime; how claims are made influences violence crystallization.
Factors influencing violence include the designation of performers, responses to state power, and organized identities within contentious performances.
Questions and Directions for Further Inquiry
Questions outlined for exploration include:
Conditions and motivations behind collective claims and subsequent violence.
Factors differentiating violent from non-violent claims making.
Variations in the forms and salience of violence when it occurs.
Future analysis will explore trends in collective violence and contextual interactions shaping violent outcomes.