| The main argument examined in this research is that the escalation or de-escalation of political violence is related to three main factors: (a) the duration, consistency, and magnitude of formal and informal repressive policies/acts by the state or its agents, (b) the existence of large economic disparities, and (c) the level of democratic development attained. The argument and the theoretical framework developed asserts that the escalation or de-escalation of political violence results because repression by a state has conflicting effects, that is, while the threat of violence by the state has a deterrent effect (which may decrease the probability of violence), the state's decision to employ such techniques may in fact reduce the state's legitimacy and in so doing ignite a volatile situation where a grievance-based insurgency becomes mobilized towards violence. Consequently, the varied outcomes to repression may fluctuate depending on which of these factors, deterrence or lack of legitimacy prevail, and if alternative institutional mechanisms are available. The findings in this research revealed that formal, and to a much lesser degree informal, repression by the state encouraged more rather than less political violence in Northern Ireland. The analysis indicated that the relationship between repression and political violence follows both linear and curvilinear patterns depending on the occurrence of a specific type of violence. This research concluded that the existence of these various patterns demonstrate how the outcomes of repression vary especially when these relationships coexist. Various types of repression by the state appeared to have different impacts on different forms of violence. One of the major findings of this research, which was confirmed with the application of Granger causality tests, was that repression is positively associated with more insurgent violence. |
