November 15, 2021
Fearon and Laitin (2000) identify different strategic logics:
Political elites may encourage violence for several reasons:
Violence as a means to accomplish these goals (directly or indirectly)
What factors seem important in explaining this riot?
How important are strategic calculations?
Key causal contributors to “Deadly Ethnic Riots”:
Applied to Tulsa:
Violence too complex to have one cause: purely strategic explanations are lacking:
BUT moral psychology, cultural context may change too slowly to explain when and where violence takes place…
Theorizes two different strategic logics for violence, we focus on one today, one Wednesday:
In Tulsa, the state chose when to stop/allow rioting. National Guard able to stop rioters when committed to that purpose.
Wilkinson wants to explain: what leads governments to stop or permit riots to continue?
In late February 2002, a train carrying Hindu nationalists home to Gujarat from Ayodhya\(^*\) caught fire, 58 people died
Precipitating events across India (see squares)
But… major riots (circles) limited to Gujarat
As in Tulsa, government in Gujarat did not stop the riots.
BJP (Narendra Modi) government:
Unlike Tulsa, in other Indian states:
Why did Gujarat permit riots to occur while other states did not?
Government strategy dictated by elections: will only stop violence if they directly or indirectly depend on votes of people targeted by the riots
This can happen under two sets of conditions:
When many parties compete successfully, minority group voters can determine who wins. Permitting riots that target this group may cost any ruling party victory at the next election.
When only a few parties are competitive, parties that do not win minority votes anyway face no incentive to stop riots against that group.