Democracy dismissed: When leaders and citizens choose election violence

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Kathleen Klaus, Megan Turnbull
{"title":"Democracy dismissed: When leaders and citizens choose election violence","authors":"Kathleen Klaus, Megan Turnbull","doi":"10.1177/00223433251352662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In democratic settings, election violence is often jointly produced: it relies not only on elite incentives and capacities to deploy violence, but also on the willingness of ordinary actors to participate. Yet many studies of election violence overlook this elite–citizen interaction, effectively black-boxing the process through which elites mobilize people to fight. This article introduces and advances the concept of the joint production of election violence – a relatively common but undertheorized process through which political elites rely, not on their own militias or state security forces, but on the collaboration and participation of ordinary citizens. Such violence is especially puzzling in democracies, where citizens ostensibly have nonviolent avenues for political claim-making. To help explain how such violence becomes possible and how it unfolds, the article develops a framework that emphasizes two central components: (1) the circulation and resonance of threat-based and victimhood narratives that legitimize political violence, and (2) the social infrastructure – networks and organizational linkages – that facilitate the organization and coordination of violence. We draw on two cases of jointly produced election violence – Nigeria in 2003 and the United States in 2021 – to demonstrate how the framework can be applied across democracies at distinct stages of consolidation. Broadly, by developing the concept of jointly produced violence and offering a framework for its study, we aim to facilitate more systematic and comparative analyses of elite–citizen interactions in the context of electoral violence, helping to render visible a process that is often invisible in existing studies, while also bridging theories of election violence, democratic erosion, and right-wing extremism.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Peace Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433251352662","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In democratic settings, election violence is often jointly produced: it relies not only on elite incentives and capacities to deploy violence, but also on the willingness of ordinary actors to participate. Yet many studies of election violence overlook this elite–citizen interaction, effectively black-boxing the process through which elites mobilize people to fight. This article introduces and advances the concept of the joint production of election violence – a relatively common but undertheorized process through which political elites rely, not on their own militias or state security forces, but on the collaboration and participation of ordinary citizens. Such violence is especially puzzling in democracies, where citizens ostensibly have nonviolent avenues for political claim-making. To help explain how such violence becomes possible and how it unfolds, the article develops a framework that emphasizes two central components: (1) the circulation and resonance of threat-based and victimhood narratives that legitimize political violence, and (2) the social infrastructure – networks and organizational linkages – that facilitate the organization and coordination of violence. We draw on two cases of jointly produced election violence – Nigeria in 2003 and the United States in 2021 – to demonstrate how the framework can be applied across democracies at distinct stages of consolidation. Broadly, by developing the concept of jointly produced violence and offering a framework for its study, we aim to facilitate more systematic and comparative analyses of elite–citizen interactions in the context of electoral violence, helping to render visible a process that is often invisible in existing studies, while also bridging theories of election violence, democratic erosion, and right-wing extremism.
民主被抛弃:当领导人和公民选择选举暴力时
在民主环境中,选举暴力往往是共同产生的:它不仅依赖于精英的动机和部署暴力的能力,还依赖于普通行动者参与的意愿。然而,许多关于选举暴力的研究忽视了这种精英与公民之间的互动,实际上是精英动员人们进行斗争的过程。本文介绍并推进了联合制造选举暴力的概念,这是一种相对常见但理论化程度较低的过程,政治精英不是依靠自己的民兵或国家安全部队,而是依靠普通公民的合作和参与。这种暴力在民主国家尤其令人费解,在民主国家,公民表面上有非暴力的政治诉求途径。为了帮助解释这种暴力如何成为可能以及如何展开,本文建立了一个框架,强调两个核心组成部分:(1)基于威胁和受害者的叙述的循环和共鸣,使政治暴力合法化;(2)社会基础设施——网络和组织联系——促进暴力的组织和协调。我们以2003年的尼日利亚和2021年的美国这两个共同产生的选举暴力事件为例,展示了该框架如何适用于处于不同巩固阶段的民主国家。从广义上讲,通过发展联合产生暴力的概念并为其研究提供一个框架,我们的目标是促进对选举暴力背景下精英与公民互动的更系统和比较分析,帮助将现有研究中往往不可见的过程呈现出来,同时也将选举暴力、民主侵蚀和右翼极端主义的理论联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Journal of Peace Research is an interdisciplinary and international peer reviewed bimonthly journal of scholarly work in peace research. Edited at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), by an international editorial committee, Journal of Peace Research strives for a global focus on conflict and peacemaking. From its establishment in 1964, authors from over 50 countries have published in JPR. The Journal encourages a wide conception of peace, but focuses on the causes of violence and conflict resolution. Without sacrificing the requirements for theoretical rigour and methodological sophistication, articles directed towards ways and means of peace are favoured.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信