Responses to state repression

Democratic governments suffer electoral consequences for violence against civilians

What are the electoral consequences of democratic governments using violence against their people? Researchers studied this question in the context of the Marikana massacre, where the South African police killed 34 miners and wounded dozens of others to stop a mining strike. They found that a new opposition party formed as a direct result of violence, with many voters switching their vote to the new party; that party is now the 3rd largest party in South Africa. The new party was able to form and grow because South Africa has low barriers to registering parties and a mixed electoral system that gives new parties a chance for representation nationally and locally. This research shows that democratic voters hold incumbent parties accountable for violence, but their ability to hold the incumbent accountable depends on opposition parties offering a reasonable alternative.

State repression can trigger more dissent in hybrid and authoritarian regimes

How do citizens in hybrid and authoritarian regimes respond to dissent and state repression? A paper analyzed this question for the 2018 Zimbabwean election, where citizen dissent was followed by increased repression. Nonpartisans and supporters of opposition parties became more likely to protest after exposure to dissent and repression, but neither dissent nor repression affected protesting by supporters of the ruling party. Partially explaining this difference is that repression increased feelings of anger (a mobilizing emotion) for opposition supporters, but increased feelings of sadness (a demobilizing emotion) for ruling party supporters. This research suggests that repression can incite backlash in authoritarian regimes, where voters have few ways to express discontent in the formal political system.

Do you have a study we should share for a future Facty Friday? Send an email to drg.el@usaid.gov!