Gurr - 1970

Conflict is a major theme in human thought, often rivaled only by discussions of God and love (Anatol Rapoport).
Throughout history, the institutions, persons, and policies of rulers have been met with violent reactions from those they govern.
Historical data on European states reveals an average of only four peaceful years for each year of violence over 24 centuries.
Between 1961 and 1968, violent conflict occurred in 114 out of 121 major nations and colonies.
Most acts of group violence are minimal in impact on political life; however, significant instances have resulted in mass destruction and weakened political frameworks.
Noteworthy conflicts leading to high mortality include several civil wars and rebellions since 1945.
Despite its destructive nature, political violence can catalyze the establishment of new political entities, as demonstrated by revolutions in America, Turkey, Mexico, and Russia.

Political violence entails collective violence against a political regime or actors, which can encompass revolutions, guerrilla warfare, coups d'état, and riots.
Such violence encompasses the use of force to achieve objectives within or against the political framework.
The ethical evaluation of political violence is context-dependent; what may be undesirable to one party might be viewed positively by another.

Political violence can signify deep-seated social issues when existing channels for demands are insufficient.
High levels of violence, however, often correlate with diminished effectiveness of political systems in fulfilling other functions, exacerbating loss of life and resources.

Political violence remains underanalyzed as a category in social sciences despite its prevalence and impact.
Researchers have documented similar causal factors in differing types of political violence, suggesting a unified framework for understanding them.

The study outlines a model proposing the relations between various societal conditions and political violence.
Key questions include: 1) the psychological and social roots of collective violence, 2) factors that direct this violence towards political systems, and 3) conditions influencing the scale and form of such violence.
The nature of discontent resulting from perceived deprivation is pivotal in catalyzing collective violence.

Three principal forms of political violence are outlined:
- Turmoil: Spontaneous and unorganized violence involving public participation.
- Conspiracy: Organized violence with limited participation, such as political assassinations and coups.
- Internal War: Highly organized violence with widespread involvement aimed at regime change, including civil wars and major revolutions.

Certain societal conditions incite increased perceptions of deprivation, potentially leading to political violence.
High intensity of deprivation correlates with higher likelihood of organized violence; this intensity can vary notably among different groups within a society.

Measures of violence include scope (participation extent), destructiveness (intensity), and persistence (duration).
Political violence is most severe when opposition and government forces exhibit comparable coercive control levels.
Events of violence are differentiated by their organization levels—the main distinction is between spontaneous acts (turmoil) and systematically planned efforts (conspiracy and internal warfare).

The relationship between social dynamics and political violence stresses that higher discontent levels lead to greater violence likelihood, shaped by the regime's coercive capabilities and institutional support.
An analytical framework aims to synthesize psychological and societal conditions contributing to various manifestations of political violence.
A comprehensive portrayal of the sources, magnitude, and typology of political violence enables a better understanding of its societal implications.