The relationship between state violence and private violence forms a cornerstone of comparative politics, providing valuable insights into the mechanisms of coercion, resistance, and the conditions under which violence arises within political systems. State violence, often seen as an instrument wielded by governments to maintain order, suppress dissent, or expand power, is juxtaposed with private violence—acts carried out by non-state actors such as insurgents, criminal organisations, or revolutionary movements. This dynamic interplay between state and private violence shapes the political landscape, influencing both the stability of regimes and social order.

In this article I present an interactive learning activity to help undergraduate students of Comparative Politics and International Relations analyse the symbiotic nature of state and private violence, examining how both entities shape political outcomes and social structures. It is inspired a topic in the unit Dictators and Democrats: Comparative Politics, into which I’m currently teaching into at Swinburne Online.

This learning activity engages students through a comparative case study approach, using the CrisisWatch interactive map published by International Crisis Group to explore real-world conflicts. Students will assess the interplay of state and private violence, evaluate the political objectives achieved through violence, and explore peacebuilding opportunities. Through this lens, we will consider the effectiveness of violence in achieving political goals, the factors that precipitate its emergence, and the human toll it exacts on societies.

While the study of political violence often involves theoretical frameworks, comparative analysis, and academic inquiry, it is critical to remember that political violence is not merely an intellectual topic—it profoundly impacts real people, communities, and societies. Behind every statistic or case study are individuals whose lives have been disrupted, families torn apart, and communities devastated. Wars, revolutions, terrorism, and repression leave legacies of trauma, displacement, and loss that can persist for generations.

As analysts and students of Comparative Politics, it is essential to approach this subject with sensitivity and respect, recognising that the dynamics we analyse academically are lived realities for millions worldwide. This awareness should not hinder critical thinking but instead inspire a deeper commitment to understanding the human consequences of political violence and exploring ways to mitigate its impact.

State violence, often framed as coercive actions undertaken by governmental entities to maintain order or suppress dissent, operates alongside private violence, which includes acts by non-state actors ranging from insurgencies to criminal organizations. These phenomena manifest across diverse forms of political violence, including wars, revolutions, coup d’états, terrorism, state repression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and religious-based violence, each demonstrating distinct yet overlapping dynamics.

Theorists like Tilly (2003) emphasise that state formation and violence are intrinsically linked, with the monopolization of violence by the state being both a cause and consequence of political consolidation. The state’s capacity to employ violence, as seen in repression and war-making, has been analysed as a strategy to maintain hegemony (Gurr 2015). For instance, state repression, often justified as necessary for national security, disproportionately targets opposition movements, leading to what Davenport (2007) terms the “repression-dissent paradox,” where state violence paradoxically incites private violence.

Private violence, meanwhile, frequently emerges in opposition to perceived state illegitimacy or failure. Wars and revolutions are prime examples of such confrontations. Skocpol’s (1979) structural analysis of revolutions highlights the role of state breakdown and international pressures in catalysing revolutionary violence.

Similarly, civil wars, as explored by Kalyvas (2006), often blur the lines between public and private violence, as localised grievances intersect with broader political struggles. These dynamics are particularly evident in ethnic conflicts, where private actors may perpetrate violence to resist state oppression or assert autonomy, as seen in the Rwandan genocide (Mamdani 2001).

Wars, often considered the archetype of organised political violence, illustrate the interaction between state and private actors in violent conflict. Classical theories, such as Clausewitz’s ([1832] 1989) framing of war as the continuation of politics by other means, position war as a tool of statecraft. However, modern analyses highlight the increasingly complex roles of non-state actors in warfare. Kalyvas (2006) argues that civil wars blur the lines between state and private violence, as local grievances intertwine with broader ideological or geopolitical disputes. This dynamic is evident in proxy wars, where state actors sponsor private militias or insurgent groups to advance strategic goals without direct engagement (Salehyan 2010).

The rise of asymmetric warfare further underscores this interplay. Non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations or guerrilla movements, increasingly challenge state militaries through unconventional tactics (Arreguín-Toft 2001). Examples include the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War or the Taliban in Afghanistan, where private violence not only contested state authority but also reshaped the global understanding of warfare.

State repression, as a deliberate form of political violence, is organised by a state or its leaders to maintain power, extending beyond the “normal” levels of coercion associated with enforcing public order. Unlike routine governance functions such as law enforcement, state repression systematically targets specific groups, individuals, or ideologies deemed threats to the regime’s stability. Its intensity and forms vary widely, ranging from legal repression to clandestine extrajudicial killings, and in extreme cases, escalating into mass atrocities.

Legal repression, often executed under the guise of maintaining law and order, involves the political use of police or military forces to suppress dissent. Arrests, detentions, and trials of political opponents or activists are conducted under fabricated charges or vaguely defined national security laws (Davenport 2007). For example, the apartheid regime in South Africa used laws like the Suppression of Communism Act to detain and prosecute anti-apartheid activists (Jochelson 1990).

Purges represent another manifestation of repression, often conducted by secret police forces with or without formal legal procedures. Stalin’s Great Purge in the Soviet Union is a notable example, where millions of perceived political enemies were arrested, sent to labour camps, or executed (Getty & Naumov 1999). Such purges aim to eliminate internal opposition, consolidate power, and instil fear within society and the political elite.

Illegal repression involves extrajudicial tactics, such as the use of criminal gangs or paramilitary groups to intimidate, attack, or eliminate opponents. In Latin America, for instance, regimes during the Cold War employed death squads to silence dissent, as documented in Argentina’s “Dirty War” (Feitlowitz 1998). These clandestine actions are often state-sponsored but provide plausible deniability for the regime.

At the extreme end of repression lies the use of death squads by police or military forces. These secret units engage in targeted killings of activists, opposition leaders, or suspected dissidents. During the Salvadoran Civil War, death squads backed by the government were responsible for widespread atrocities, including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero (Stanley 1996).

State repression thus encompasses a continuum of violence, from ostensibly legal actions to overtly illegal and catastrophic measures. Its centrality in comparative politics highlights the mechanisms through which states assert control, the conditions under which repression escalates, and its profound consequences for societies.

In its most severe forms, state repression can escalate into mass murder, as seen in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. Genocide and ethnic cleansing, distinct yet overlapping phenomena, reflect the extreme end of state violence. Scholars like Straus (2006) argue that genocide often arises from state-sponsored initiatives to eliminate perceived threats to national unity or identity. The ongoing Israeli military actions in Gaza, characterised by widespread destruction, mass civilian casualties, and severe restrictions on basic resources, have been identified by the International Court of Justice several human rights organisations as meeting the criteria for genocide under international law (Amnesty International 2024; Human Rights Watch 2024).

Ethnic cleansing, while also state-directed in many instances, frequently involves private actors who capitalise on state policies to pursue their agendas, as seen in the Yugoslav Wars (Kaufman 2001). Duringthe Khmer Rouge’s reign in Cambodia and in the Rwandan genocide, state apparatuses were mobilised to systematically exterminate targeted groups (Mamdani 2001). The intersection of state and private violence in these cases underscores the role of ideology and identity in shaping the modalities of violence.

Revolutions represent transformative instances of political violence, often precipitated by the breakdown of state structures and the mobilization of private actors against entrenched regimes. Skocpol’s (1979) seminal analysis attributes revolutionary violence to the conjunction of state weakness, elite fragmentation, and peasant mobilization. Her work on the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions underscores the structural vulnerabilities that enable private actors to challenge state dominance.

Theorists such as Goldstone (1991) expand on this by emphasising demographic pressures, economic crises, and state fiscal collapse as triggers for revolutionary violence. These conditions create opportunities for revolutionary leaders to galvanise mass support, as seen in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 or the Arab Spring uprisings (El-Ghobashy 2011). Yet, revolutionary violence also often transitions into state violence when victorious movements consolidate power, as highlighted by Arendt (1963), who notes the paradoxical tendency of revolutions to replicate coercive state mechanisms.

Coup d’états, defined as sudden, illegal seizures of power by state elites, straddle the boundary between state and private violence. While typically executed by military actors, coups often involve tacit or explicit support from non-state entities, such as business elites or foreign governments. For example, Powell and Thyne (2011) argue that coups are more likely in states with weak institutions, high levels of political instability, and divided elites.

Unlike revolutions, coups are rarely mass-driven; instead, they rely on elite coordination and the manipulation of state apparatuses. Finer (1962) identifies the military’s “political tutelage” in many developing states as a key factor in explaining the prevalence of coups, particularly in post-colonial contexts. The historical cases of Chile in 1973 and Thailand in 2006 demonstrate how coup leaders exploit state weaknesses and societal discontent to justify their actions, often leading to periods of authoritarian rule and intensified state violence against opposition.

Terrorism epitomises the nexus of state and private violence. Non-state groups employ terrorism to challenge state authority and provoke overreach, a dynamic extensively analysed by Pape (2005) in his study of suicide terrorism. Conversely, state terrorism, as defined by Stohl and Lopez (1984), involves the use of fear-inducing tactics by governments to suppress dissent, illustrating how states and private actors mirror each other’s tactics.

But as the old saying goes, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. How “terrorism” is deployed as a rhetorical device to smear various “others” adds a layer of contention to the concept (Kapitan and Schulte 2002), and requires political analysts to be extremely precise in how we define and deploy the term.

In this activity we will explore the phenomenon of political violence, which is what happens when political systems are unable to peaceably accommodate competing claims for power.

For an analyst of Comparative Politics, the broader animating question this topic—Does political violence achieve anything?—is not about directly assessing the morality of violence in and of itself, but rather about evaluating whether violence can ultimately be successful in achieving political objectives. This is a significant question in countries across the world in 2025.

With that in mind, our core concepts in this topic are:

• State violence and private violence.
• Forms of political violence, including wars, revolutions, coup d’états, terrorism, state repression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, religious-based violence.

This activity is designed to help students achieve the following objectives:

• Understand and describe key forms of political violence and their effects on politics and society.
• Identify and differentiate between state violence and private violence.
• Critically assess whether political violence achieves its intended political objectives using real-world data.

By engaging in this activity, students will develop analytical skills to interpret political violence through comparative case studies, gain practical experience using a real-world data resource, and refine their ability to communicate complex ideas in written and visual formats.

This activity is based on students’ analysis of the CrisisWatchinteractive world map, published by NGO International Crisis Group, which is an excellent resource for Comparative Politics students seeking to understand the dynamics of political violence.

“CrisisWatch is our global conflict tracker, an early warning tool designed to help prevent deadly violence. It keeps decision-makers up-to-date with developments in over 70 conflicts and crises every month, identifying trends and alerting them to risks of escalation and opportunities to advance peace. In addition, CrisisWatch monitors over 50 situations (“standby monitoring”) to offer timely information if developments indicate a drift toward violence or instability. Entries dating back to 2003 provide easily searchable conflict histories.”

The interactive map visually represents global conflicts and crises. Here’s how you can use it in this activity:

• Use the filters to explore specific regions, timeframes, or types of conflict. This allows you to narrow down the data to relevant case studies.
• Review monthly updates to understand recent trends in political violence, including escalations, de-escalations, and new crises.
• Pay attention to the “alerts” highlighting regions at risk of escalation or showing opportunities for peacebuilding. These provide real-time insights into conflict dynamics.
• Use the searchable archive dating back to 2003 to trace the historical development of specific conflicts.
• Compare the evolution of conflicts across different regions to identify patterns, triggers, and resolutions.
• Apply concepts from your Comparative Politics coursework to analyse the information. Focus on political violence’s causes, actors, and consequences, linking them to theoretical frameworks about regime types.
• Review sections on opportunities to advance peace. Critically analyse these suggestions, considering their feasibility and alignment with political theories.

International Crisis Group produces excellent case study reports, I strongly recommend this as a resource for students to explore in the preparation of their written submissions for this activity.

Prior to the class, students are required to complete the following preparatory tasks:

Complete the week’s lecture content and assigned readings, focusing on:

• Forms of political violence (wars, revolutions, coup d’états, terrorism, state repression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, religious-based violence).
• The distinction between state violence and private violence.

Familiarise themselves with the International Crisis Group’s CrisisWatch interactive world map.

• Explore a conflict or crisis of interest using the filters and search tools.
• Take notes on key insights: causes, actors, forms of violence, consequences, and any peacebuilding opportunities highlighted.

Step 1: Group formation and conflict selection (in groups)

• Students form small groups of 3-4.
• Each group selects one active conflict or crisis from the CrisisWatch map.

Step 2: Conflict analysis using CrisisWatch (in groups)

Each group will access the CrisisWatch map and retrieve detailed information about their chosen conflict. Specifically, they will identify and discuss:

• The primary form(s) of political violence present.
• Key actors (state, non-state, or international).
• Underlying causes and political objectives pursued through violence.
• Current trends: Is the conflict escalating or de-escalating?
• Any identified opportunities for peacebuilding.

Step 3: Group presentations (whole class)

A representative from each group presents their findings to the class in a brief 5-minute summary.

Step 4: Class debrief (whole class)

Groups compare their selected conflicts, focusing on:

• Similarities and differences in causes, actors, and outcomes.
• Patterns in the success or failure of violence in achieving political objectives.
• The interplay between state and private violence in their cases.

Each student writes a 500-word blog post analysing one selected conflict using insights from the CrisisWatch map and course concepts.

Student should follow the following guidelines in compiling their blog submissions:

Title: Create a compelling title reflecting the conflict and key themes (e.g., “State Repression in Myanmar: A Case Study of Escalating Violence”).

Overview: Describe the conflict, highlighting the forms of political violence involved.

Analysis: The analytical content should form the substantive core of the blog post.

• Discuss whether violence is achieving political objectives.
• Examine the role of state versus private violence.
• Use course concepts to interpret the conflict dynamics.

Insights: Critically analyse any peacebuilding opportunities highlighted in CrisisWatch. Are they feasible? How do they align with theories of conflict resolution?

Visuals: Include screenshots of relevant sections of the CrisisWatch map to support analysis.

Conclusion: Reflect on the broader implications for understanding political violence globally.

Submission details: Blogs should be posted on the course’s learning management system or shared class blog by the end of the week.

Collaborative learning: Peer comments are encouraged to foster collaborative learning.

The study of political violence—encompassing both state and private violence—reminds us that the boundaries between perpetrators, victims, and agents of change are often fluid. Whether through the actions of a coercive state, the resistance of private actors, or the complex interactions between the two, political violence shapes political landscapes and leaves lasting scars on societies.

As we evaluate the forms and impacts of political violence, it is essential to recognise that the stakes are not merely theoretical or academic; they are personal and profoundly human. In exploring the broader implications of these events, we are tasked not only with understanding their causes and consequences but also with considering how such violence can be prevented, mitigated, or ultimately transformed.

Our goal as analysts is not to simply study violence but to work towards a more peaceful and just world where such violence is no longer a lived reality for so many.

Amnesty International. (2024). Amnesty International investigation concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Arendt, H. (1963). On Revolution. Viking Press.

Arreguín-Toft, I. (2001). How the weak win wars: A theory of asymmetric conflict. International Security. 26(1), 93-128.

Clausewitz, C. v. ([1832] 2023). On War. Good Press.

El-Ghobashy, M. (2011). The Praxis of the Egyptian Revolution. Middle East Report. 41.

Finer, S. E. (1962). The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics (1^st ed.). Pall Mall Press.

Goldstone, J. A. (1991). Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. University of California Press.

Gurr, T. R. (2015). Why Men Rebel (40^th Anniversary Edition). Taylor & Francis.

Human Rights Watch. (2024). Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity in Gaza: Mass Forced Displacement and Widespread Destruction.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2003). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press.

Kalyvas, S. N. (2006). The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge University Press.

Kaufman, S. J. (2001). Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Cornell University Press.

Lemarchand, R. (2006). Consociationalism and power sharing in Africa: Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. African Affairs, 106(422), 1-20.

Mamdani, M. (2002). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton University Press.

Pape, R. A. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House.

Powell, J. M., & Thyne, C. L. (2011). Global instances of coups from 1950 to 2010: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research. 48(2), 249-259.

Salehyan, I. (2010). The delegation of war to rebel organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 54(3), 493-515.

Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press.

Stohl, M., & Lopez, G. A. (1984). The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression. Greenwood Press.

Straus, S. (2013). The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda. Cornell University Press.

Tilly, C. (2003). The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge University Press.

Davenport, C. (2007). State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge University Press.

Feitlowitz, M. (1998). A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture. Oxford University Press.

Getty, J. A., & Naumov, O. V. (1999). The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932–1939. Yale University Press.

Jochelson, K. (1990). Reform, Repression and Resistance in South Africa: A Case Study of Alexandra Township, 1979-1989. Journal of Southern African Studies. 16(1), 1–32.

Kapitan, T., & Schulte, E. (2002). THE RHETORIC OF “TERRORISM” AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. Journal of Political & Military Sociology. 30(1), 172–196.

Stanley, W. (1996). The Protection Racket State: Elite Politics, Military Extortion, and Civil War in El Salvador. Temple University Press.