We propose an explanatory framework for the comparative study of radicalization that focuses on its "how" and "when" questions. We build on the relational tradition in the study of social movements and contentious politics by expanding on a mechanism-process research strategy. Attentive to similarities as well as to dissimilarities, our comparative framework traces processes of radicalization by delineating four key arenas of interaction—between movement and political environment, among movement actors, between movement activists and state security forces, and between the movement and a countermovement. Then, we analyze how four similar corresponding general mechanisms—opportunity/threat spirals, competition for power, outbidding, and object shift—combine differently to drive the process. Last, we identify a set of submechanisms for each general mechanism. The explanatory utility of our framework is demonstrated through the analysis of three ethnonational episodes of radicalization: the enosis-EOKA movement in Cyprus (1950-1959), the Provisional Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland (1969-1972), and the Fatah-Tanzim in Palestine (1995-2001).

Although episodes of contentious politics in undemocratic regimes constitute the lion's share of contentious political events worldwide, the theorizing of political opportunity structures is based largely on contentious episodes in democratic/liberal political settings. This anomaly hampers recent attempts to redefine the boundaries among episodes of contention across time and place. Employing the case of the first Palestinian Intifada (1987-1992), I critically examine three theoretical aspects of political opportunity structures (POS): (1) how the link between POS, strateg, and tactics is forged; (2) how different levels of POS interact; and (3) the ability of multiactor movements to cope with the shifting nature of POS. I conclude by briefly illustrating the relevance of my findings to other structurally similar cases, and discuss the implications of my analysis for further sensitization of the Dynamics of Contention research program.

This study explores the role of the news media in asymmetrical conflicts after countries have signed a peace agreement. While most research has focused on the inherently negative role the press plays in attempts to bring peace, this study attempts to look at this issue using a more dynamic perspective. The theoretical argument focuses on how political factors affect the quantity and quality of the news flow and some of the ways in which leaders can sometimes overcome the obstacles they face in promoting encouraging news about peace. The model considers two political factors that have a major impact on media performance: the relative level of political power of the two sides and the varying amount of hostility. To illustrate the importance of these factors we focus on the flow of news between Jordan and Israel between 1999 and 2002. The major findings from content analyses of news articles (N = 859) appearing in both countries show that while Jordanians are exposed to massive amounts of mostly negative information about Israel, the Israeli public reads almost nothing about Jordan. Despite all this, it was also found that the initiation of diplomatic relations between the former enemies allowed for the creation of important ‘news slots’ that were previously unavailable. This development created space for less threatening types of news and also allowed leaders from both Jordan and Israel to initiate some positive stories about peace, even during some of the darkest periods.

No abstract

Scholars of political terrorism generally agree that the radical group is usually a splinter faction of an opposition movement. Seldom, however, is an attempt made to incorporate insights and tools from the literature on social movements and contentious politics into the study of the process by which a faction splinters from the larger opposition movement and adopts terrorist tactics-a process commonly known as radicalization. Drawing upon the relational approach from the literature on contentious politics, this article seeks to further understanding of radicalization by examining how and when relational mechanisms, operating in their respective relational arenas, interact and combine to drive it. Proposed is a relational framework for a comparative analysis of radicalization at three levels-domestic, ethno-national, and international-employing the case of the Weather Underground, Fatah-Tanzim, and al-Qaeda respectively.