A group of peacebuilding and conflict resolution researchers have highlighted the threat of political violence, proposing methods to address it.
Approval of political violence had risen over the past few years, said Lilliana Mason, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University’s SNF Agora Institute. While in 2017 only 7 percent of Americans approved of political violence, as of 2022 15 percent of Americans did so. This represents 25 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats. Mason noted that the percentage of approval for political violence increases to around 60 percent among both Republicans and Democrats if the opposing party starts the violence. She singled out the endorsement of violence by political leaders as an important factor in driving political violence.
Mason said that another attack on the scale of the January 6 assault on the capitol is unlikely due to the level of expected security in Washington, D.C. in the run-up to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. However, she said there is reason to be concerned about activities by right-wing militias. The most serious problem, Mason argued, is not the small number of people willing to carry out political violence, but rather a society that increasingly tolerates it and fails to enforce norms against it.
Babak Bahador, an Associate Research Professor at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs and the Director of Peace News Network, said peacebuilders trying to leverage media often fail to appreciate complex media effects. As an example, he pointed to Alhurra, an Arabic-language broadcaster started by the Bush administration in 2004 to address the perceived anti-American bias in Arabic-language media, especially Al Jazeera. Al Hurra failed to find a large audience as it struggled with its competing missions as an independent news outlet and U.S. policy mouthpiece.
Across the world, political and economic exclusion is the most important driver of civil wars, said Bahador. He added that a preemptive approach towards political violence should include addressing this exclusion by reducing economic inequality.
As U.S. democracy has weakened, elections have become increasingly high-stakes and prone to political violence, said Katy Collin, an Assistant Teaching Professor at Georgetown University and the Director of Georgetown’s Master’s program in Conflict Resolution. This is driven by a perception among both liberals and conservatives that the other side represents an existential threat to their chances of ever holding power again: “If I don’t win this election, I may not have another opportunity to contest.”
She outlined differences between violence taking place before and during elections, which she said can affect polling and voting, and post-electoral violence. Collin said violence after elections can cause even more instability, induce doubts about the results, and open up opportunities for legitimate results to be challenged or overturned.
Jeff Helsing, a Research Associate Professor at the Carter School and the Executive Director of the peacebuilding research group Better Evidence Project, highlighted the potential of peacebuilding groups. He said that peacebuilding organizations can serve a constructive role in preventing electoral violence by opening up spaces for people to peacefully express their views.
A national, independent, and non-partisan election observation organism would help rebuild trust in U.S. elections, argued Collin. She compared this option to the current prevalence of poll watchers mostly associated with the two main political parties. Helsing pushed back against this proposal, saying that election observation at a local level represented an example of effective bipartisan cooperation and that the most effective peacebuilding projects start locally.
When the panel was opened up for questions, the participants were asked how more conservatives could be brought into the depolarization field. Mason said that many Republican elected officials disagree with the politics of Trump’s “America First” movement and could be effective partners, but that they are reluctant to speak out due to the president-elect’s popularity with the Republican base. Isaac Saul, the journalist moderating the panel, said that conservatives could be approached on a case-by-case basis to build understanding on specific issues where confrontation is less pronounced.
The panel took place on October 9, before the U.S. presidential election, as part of Academics Bridging the Divide, a series of panels bringing together researchers focusing on peacebuilding, political violence, and polarization. The event was organized by Randy Lioz, a Master’s student at George Mason University’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Peace and Conflict Resolution. The panels were held at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg Center in Washington, D.C.
Pablo Molina Asensi
Pablo Molina Asensi is a Freelancer and Grants Manager for Peace News Network. He earned his M.A. in Global Communication from George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in 2024, concentrating in Conflict and Conflict Resolution. He also graduated from The American University's School of International Service in 2022, with concentrations in Peace, Global Security, and Conflict Resolution in addition to Global Inequality and Development. Pablo is particularly interested in issues of human rights and refugee policy. He has carried out research into the situation of DRC refugees in Uganda and has written extensively about Western Sahara.
