Political violence
Stathis Kalyvas identifies eleven types of political violence: Interstate war, Civil war, Terrorism, Political assassination, Military coup, Mass protest/Rebellion, Intercommunal violence, Organized crime/Cartels, Ethnic cleansing, Genocide, and State repression.
[13] Violent non-state actors and paramilitaries have attacked politicians or political demonstrations, for example Baltagiya (Egypt), Pancasila Youth (Indonesia), Colectivo (Venezuela), Rubbish Collection Organization (Thailand), Titushky (Ukraine, Georgia), "thugs-for-hire" (China).
Terrorism can be directed by non-state actors against political targets other than the state (e.g. Stabbing attacks at gay pride parades in Jerusalem, Charlie Hebdo shooting).
While there lacks a concrete definition of terrorism, the United States Department of Defense however defines terrorism as, "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
[16] The use of force by an organized armed group connected to government, which results in the deaths of civilians is considered one-sided.
[23] Famine can be initiated or prolonged in order to deny resources, compel obedience, or to depopulate a region with a recalcitrant or untrusted populace.
[17] A riot can be described as a violent disturbance by a group of individuals formed to protest perceived wrongs and/or injustice.
[34][35] The use of political violence is usually to fulfill a revolutionary objective, and in times of civil strife to challenge the status quo.
The goals of political violence can be varied such as to strengthen the position of a group, or to weaken an opposing side.
Counter-insurgency, another form of political violence, describes a spectrum of actions taken by the recognized government of a state to contain or quell an insurgency taken up against it.
[45] However, more recent scholarship questions the conclusion that violence is decreasing world-wide, based on the measures used and the statistical basis for such interpretations.
In addition indicators show a rise in violence in the 2010s, heavily driven by conflicts involving transnational jihadist groups in the Middle East.
[49] Longer term statistical analysis suggests that this pattern is not unusual given the variability involved in a long-term datasets of historical wars, and that conclusions of a downward trend are premature.
[50] The Center for Systemic Peace reports that armed conflict in the post-World War II era was at its peak when the Soviet Union collapsed.
[55][56] Bear F. Braumoeller argues that looking at data on per-capita death is a "misleading and irrelevant statistic" because it does not tell us how wars actually happen.
[57] Using this metric he finds that there is no downward trend in the rates of conflict initiation since the post-World War II period.
Additionally, he finds that the rates of conflict have remained steady over the past two hundred years and the slight increases and decreases in use of force are random.
[48] As of 2014, regionally, Asia had the largest number of violent conflicts at 14, followed by Africa at 12, Europe at six, Middle East at six, and the Americas at two.
Additionally, six conflicts were restarted by previously registered actors in "Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh), India (Garoland), India–Pakistan, Israel (Palestine), Mali (Azawad), and Myanmar (Kokang)".
[58] In 2013 and 2014, the perpetrators responsible for the most terrorist attacks were ISIS, the Taliban, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and Maoists.
This will cause the young adult male population to "prolong dependency on parents, diminish self-esteem and fuel frustrations".
As Gurr explains, relative deprivation "is defined as actors' perception of discrepancy between their value expectations and their value capabilities.
"[65] The collective discontent, the gap between the expected and achieved welfare, leads people to resort to violence.
[67] Individuals are said to be motivated by grievance when they fight over "high inequality, a lack of political rights or ethnic and religious divisions in society.
Social science literature that examines how political violence affects the region, state, nation, and society.
There are a growing number of social science studies that examine how political violence affects individuals and households.
[71] A study on the effects of the Sierra Leone civil war found that victimized households, household whose members were killed, injured, maimed, captured, or displaced, did not have long-term impacts on owning assets, child nutrition, consumption expenditures and earnings.
As of early 2016, ACLED has recorded over 100,000 individual events, with ongoing data collection focused on Africa and ten countries in South and Southeast Asia.
The database uses this definition to catalog a number of what it refers to as political events across Africa and Southeast Asia.
[73] The Human Security Report Project (HSRP) catalogs global and regional trends in organized violence, their causes and consequences.
