Election violence prevention during democratic transitions: A field experiment with youth and police in Liberia

IF 3.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Peace Research Pub Date : 2024-02-22 DOI:10.1177/00223433231211770
Lindsey Pruett, Alex Dyzenhaus, Sabrina Karim, Dao Freeman
{"title":"Election violence prevention during democratic transitions: A field experiment with youth and police in Liberia","authors":"Lindsey Pruett, Alex Dyzenhaus, Sabrina Karim, Dao Freeman","doi":"10.1177/00223433231211770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During highly uncertain, post-conflict elections, police officers and youth-wing party activists often engage in low-intensity electoral violence, which cannot be readily explained by national-level, institutional, elite-level strategic incentives for violence. Responding to calls to examine ‘non-strategic’ election violence, this article examines both the key actors most likely to perpetrate violence on-the-ground, and the micro-level perceptions underlying their decisions. In post-conflict contexts, police and youth-wing party activists operate within uncertain, information-poor and weakly institutionalized settings. Consequently, their pre-existing attitudes towards the use of violence, democracy, electoral institutions and towards other political actors influence how and when they engage in electoral violence. We proposed two different paths for reducing this uncertainty and improving attitudes: a) civic engagement programs and b) experience with ‘crucial’ elections, which we defined as the first post-conflict election following the withdrawal of external guarantors of electoral security. We employed a unique, locally led field experiment and panel data collected during the 2017 Liberian election to demonstrate how a ‘crucial election’ improved attitudes of both police and youth activists, while civic engagement programming did not. The findings suggested that elections following major structural reforms may reinforce democratization by improving the attitudes of the actors most likely to participate in violence.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","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/10.1177/00223433231211770","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

During highly uncertain, post-conflict elections, police officers and youth-wing party activists often engage in low-intensity electoral violence, which cannot be readily explained by national-level, institutional, elite-level strategic incentives for violence. Responding to calls to examine ‘non-strategic’ election violence, this article examines both the key actors most likely to perpetrate violence on-the-ground, and the micro-level perceptions underlying their decisions. In post-conflict contexts, police and youth-wing party activists operate within uncertain, information-poor and weakly institutionalized settings. Consequently, their pre-existing attitudes towards the use of violence, democracy, electoral institutions and towards other political actors influence how and when they engage in electoral violence. We proposed two different paths for reducing this uncertainty and improving attitudes: a) civic engagement programs and b) experience with ‘crucial’ elections, which we defined as the first post-conflict election following the withdrawal of external guarantors of electoral security. We employed a unique, locally led field experiment and panel data collected during the 2017 Liberian election to demonstrate how a ‘crucial election’ improved attitudes of both police and youth activists, while civic engagement programming did not. The findings suggested that elections following major structural reforms may reinforce democratization by improving the attitudes of the actors most likely to participate in violence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在民主过渡时期预防选举暴力:利比里亚青年和警察的实地实验
在高度不确定的冲突后选举中,警察和青年党派积极分子经常参与低强度的选举暴力,而这并不能轻易用国家、机构和精英层面的暴力战略动机来解释。为了响应研究 "非战略性 "选举暴力的呼吁,本文既研究了最有可能在实地实施暴力的主要行为者,也研究了他们做出决定时的微观观念。在冲突后环境中,警察和青年党派活动分子的活动环境不确定、信息匮乏且制度化程度低。因此,他们之前对使用暴力、民主、选举机构和其他政治行为者的态度会影响他们参与选举暴力的方式和时间。我们提出了两种不同的途径来减少这种不确定性并改善人们的态度:a)公民参与计划;b)"关键 "选举的经验,我们将其定义为选举安全的外部担保人撤出后的第一次冲突后选举。我们采用了一个独特的、由当地主导的实地实验和在 2017 年利比里亚选举期间收集的面板数据,以证明 "关键选举 "如何改善了警察和青年活动家的态度,而公民参与计划却没有。研究结果表明,重大结构改革后的选举可能会通过改善最有可能参与暴力的行为者的态度来加强民主化。
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 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Friends and partners: Estimating latent affinity networks with the graphical LASSO Demographic features or spatial structures? Unpacking local variation during the 2022 Iranian protests Many hurdles to take: Explaining peacekeepers’ ability to engage in human rights activities De jure powersharing 1975–2019: Updating the Inclusion, Dispersion, and Constraints Dataset How user language affects conflict fatality estimates in ChatGPT
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1