After Repression

In the wake of the Arab Spring, newly empowered factions in Tunisia and Egypt vowed to work together to establish democracy. In Tunisia, political elites passed a new constitution, held parliamentary elections, and demonstrated the strength of their democracy with a peaceful transfer of power. Yet in Egypt, unity crumbled due to polarization among elites. Presenting a new theory of polarization under authoritarianism, the book reveals how polarization and the legacies of repression led to these substantially divergent political outcomes. The book documents polarization among the opposition in Tunisia and Egypt prior to the Arab Spring, tracing how different kinds of repression influenced the bonds between opposition groups.

"A Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Book" -- dust jacket.

In 1895, forty-seven rebel military officers contested the terms of a law that granted them amnesty but blocked their immediate return to the armed forces. During the century that followed, numerous other Brazilians who similarly faced repercussions for political opposition or outright rebellion subsequently made claims to forms of recompense through amnesty. By 2010, tens of thousands of Brazilians had sought reparations, referred to as amnesty, for repression suffered during the Cold War–era dictatorship. This book examines the evolution of amnesty in Brazil and describes when and how it functioned as an institution synonymous with restitution. Ann M. Schneider is concerned with the politics of conciliation and reflects on this history of Brazil in the context of broader debates about transitional justice. She argues that the adjudication of entitlements granted in amnesty laws marked points of intersection between prevailing and profoundly conservative politics with moments and trends that galvanized the demand for and the expansion of rights, showing that amnesty in Brazil has been both surprisingly democratizing and yet stubbornly undemocratic.

Surviving repression tells the story of the Muslim Brotherhood in the aftermath of the 2013 coup. It is the first book of its kind to analyse the movement's recent trajectories by showcasing the experiences of its individual members, analysing how their responses to repression are affecting the movement as a whole.

Bulldozers, violent thugs, and nonviolent brokers -- The theory : state power, repression, and implications for development -- Outsourcing violence : everyday repression via thugs-for-hire -- Case studies : thugs-for-hire, repression, and mobilization -- Networks of state infrastructural power : brokerage, state penetration, and mobilization -- Brokers in harmonious demolition : mass mobilizers, mediators, and huangniu -- Comparative context : South Korea and India.

Political repression often paradoxically fuels popular movements rather than undermining resistance. When authorities respond to strategic nonviolent action with intimidation, coercion, and violence, they often undercut their own legitimacy, precipitating significant reforms or even governmental overthrow. Brutal repression of a movement is often a turning point in its history: Bloody Sunday in the March to Selma led to the passage of civil rights legislation by the US Congress, and the Amritsar Massacre in India showed the world the injustice of the British Empire’s use of force in maintaining control over its colonies. Activists in a wide range of movements have engaged in nonviolent strategies of repression management that can raise the likelihood that repression will cost those who use it. The Paradox of Repression and Nonviolent Movements brings scholars and activists together to address multiple dimensions and significant cases of this phenomenon, including the relational nature of nonviolent struggle and the cultural terrain on which it takes place, the psychological costs for agents of repression, and the importance of participation, creativity, and overcoming fear, whether in the streets or online.

What sets a single bout of state repression apart from a longer trajectory of political violence? Why does state repression of protesters sometimes result in discrete events of violence while, in other cases, it spurs larger cascades of political violence such as politicide, genocide, or civil war? This book introduces a new framework for state repression and its relationship to different forms of civil resistance. It argues that state repression in the modern era of history is an empirical phenomenon that has been marked by singularity. Through taking the law of coercive responsiveness as a starting point, this book reveals that when political status quos are challenged by civilians, states do respond in law-like ways, but the impact that state repression has on social change is more heterogeneous than previously considered. State repression has brought about indeterminate effects and outcomes across space and time. Through analyzing event-based data featuring 24 variables on a cross-national sample of 171 different protest massacres that arose from 1819-2022, this book provides among the more wide-reaching comparative inquiries into repression and dissent to date. It draws on comparative sequential analysis to identify three different processes in which the sample of cases is matched alongside causal mechanisms and sequence types. The mixed methodological approach drawn in this book features quantitative analysis, process tracing, and qualitative case studies. Readers are taken on a journey through tumultuous periods of political violence that range from 19th-century massacres in the U.S. to 1928 Colombia and 1970s Apartheid, 1990s China, the Arab Spring, and contemporary Syria and Myanmar, among a diverse range of other cases. Along with identifying new quantitative insights into civil resistance strategies and various geographic and temporal dynamics associated with repression, the analyses presented in this book offer timely insight into policies that can aid the prevention of human rights violations.

Repression receives little attention in philosophical literature. This study of cases of repression that inhibit an agent's deliberative access to his reasons argues that an agent cannot correctly deliberate about a reason to overcome repression as if he did so, he would already have overcome repression and so would have no reason to do so.