Repression, Radicalization, And Collective Violence

Repression, Radicalization, and Collective Violence
When facing domestic dissent, regimes can either respond with “facilitation,” “repression,” or a “combination of the two” (Tilly 2006: 74, 75). Facilitative responses encourage citizens to voice dissent through means that don’t pose a threat to the regime (e.g. peaceful demonstrations) and present a “reward” to those who do so (Tilly 2006: 75). By contrast, repressive responses consist of threatening or arresting citizens who are expected to rebel as well as punishing those who choose to participate in public expressions of dissent (Tilly 2006).“Effective rulers” utilize both facilitation and repression to maintain power (Tilly 2006: 75); Colonel Muammar Qaddafi did not. His decision to exclusively rely on repressive tactics would ultimately prove to be his downfall, as this resulted in the radicalization of the uprising and the subsequent transition from peaceful demonstrations to civil war.

Tarrow defines the radicalization of movements as, “a shift in ideological commitments toward the extremes and/or the adoption of more disruptive and violent forms of contention” (Tarrow 2011: 207). This shift is often a result of a regime’s decision to respond to a movement with repressive tactics (Tarrow 201). As Koopmans states, radicalization occurs “if a regime offers few channels of access, responds by repression and is unwilling to reform, radicalization will be the dominant outcome” (Koopmans 2004: 29). Due to the regime’s use of violent coercion and stubborn objection to reform, the trajectory of the uprising is hardly