Retreating from the Brink: Theorizing Mass Violence and the Dynamics of Restraint

Abstract

The research problem driving this paper is the absence of a strong theory that accounts for variation among cases that have similar probabilities of escalating to genocide and similar forms of organized (usually state-led) mass violence against civilians. Much of the existing theory on genocide focuses on explaining under what conditions and by what processes regimes commit large-scale violence against civilians. I argue that a critical missing dimension to studies of genocide, but also more generally to the study of political violence, is a methodological recognition of negative cases and a theoretical recognition of the dynamics of restraint that helps to explain such negative cases. That is, in addition to asking what causes leaders to choose to escalate violence, I argue that scholars should emphasize conditions that prompt moderation, de-escalation, or non-escalation. I propose an alternative framework for how to conceptualize the process of political violence and review the literature to identify key restraint mechanisms at micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis. I further articulate a provisional theory of genocide using this new analytical framework. I illustrate my argument with an empirical analysis of mass violence cases in Sub-Saharan Africa since independence, and with a more in-depth analysis of comparable crises in Rwanda and Côte d'Ivoire, where the trajectories of violence differed significantly. While this paper draws on extensive empirical research, my primary purpose is not to advance a developed new theory or to test particular hypotheses, but rather to outline a research agenda that promises to draw from and contribute to recent work on the comparative politics of violence.

Understanding Mass Atrocity Prevention during Periods of Democratic Transition

“…There is no question that democratic regimes are far less likely to commit mass atrocities than autocracies, (see, for example, Harff, 2003, p. 66, and Rummel, 4 The most common approach to understanding the causes of mass atrocities is to compare past cases where such violence has occurred. This is the dominant methodological approach in the field of comparative genocide studies, as Straus (2012Straus ( , p. 343). 19941997, p. 405).…”

“…Indeed, research into the causes of mass atrocities have overwhelmingly focussed on cases where such violence has occurred, and very limited understanding and emphasis is placed on the conditions that inhibit the perpetration of mass atrocities, despite high-risk conditions (Human Security Report, 2011;McLoughlin & Mayersen, 2013;Straus, 2012). Scholarship in the field of comparative genocide studies has generally overlooked the question of why genocide and other mass atrocities do not occur, despite the fact that the preconditions-or risk factors-commonly associated with such violence manifest far more frequently than such violent outcomes themselves (Straus, 2012, p. 343).…”

“…How and why some countries manage to navigate this phase while others do not is the question under investigation here. sition is to conduct in-depth analyses of both positive and negative cases-countries that have embarked on a period of transition, distinguished by the perpetration or avoidance of mass atrocities (see, for example, Mayersen & McLoughlin, 2011;Straus, 2012). 4 My aim in this paper is threefold: to investigate the impact that long-term risk factors associated with mass atrocities have on countries undergoing democratic transition; to better understand how and why such risk becomes more acute during such periods; and finally, to identify and trace the political, economic and social processes that are instrumental in the avoidance of atrocities on the one hand, and in their perpetration on the other.…”

The Dynamics of Restraint in Côte d'Ivoire

“…The same stands for the dynamics of restraint (Straus 2012). The principal aim of this article is therefore to use Côte d'Ivoire to discuss how and why 'islands of peace' emerge during civil war.…”

Triggers of Mass Atrocities

“…The key question is: what shifts a country from being at risk of atrocities to atrocities beginning? 2 To answer that question, analysts often employ the concept of "triggers," or specific events, occurrences, 1 For a review of major categories of macro-level factors, see Straus (2012). 2 The paper uses the concepts of "genocide," "atrocities," and "mass atrocities" interchangeably.…”