Political violence: How justifications influence voter approval

The study found that describing political violence as justified can make voters more accepting of it. This challenges the assumption that democratic citizens consistently oppose political violence. Approval depended strongly on both party identity and how the event was framed.

In the experiment, respondents read different accounts of vandalism at Muslim politician Salman Khurshid’s residence. Some accounts presented the violence as a response to his criticism of Hindu organizations. Among Hindu BJP supporters, this framing increased approval of their party’s participation and reduced approval of peaceful dialogue from 0.35 to minus 0.14.

The effect was not shared by all Hindu voters. Hindu voters who did not support the BJP became more approving of a peaceful response, rising from 0.36 to 0.53. The findings suggest that political leaders can influence public reactions by either legitimizing violence or refusing to do so.

Legitimizing political violence means giving violence a justification that makes it appear warranted. The justification may describe violence as a response to a threat, an injustice, or an out-group’s actions. This framing can change how people judge the same act.

The study tested this idea using a real vandalism incident at Salman Khurshid’s residence. Respondents received different information about whether the incident was justified by Khurshid’s criticism of Hindu organizations. They also received information about whether the BJP participated in violence or initiated peaceful dialogue.

The results show why the distinction matters. When violence was not legitimized, Hindu BJP voters were indifferent between violent and peaceful responses. When it was legitimized, they approved more of their party’s participation and rejected peaceful dialogue. The article therefore links acceptance of violence to political framing, not simply general prejudice.

The survey included approximately 4,750 registered voters. It was conducted in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, during the 2022 state legislative elections. Researchers used a representative, in-person survey to examine reactions across the electorate.

Timing was important. Interviews took place after respondents had cast their votes but before election results were announced. This meant the researchers did not interfere with the campaign or respondents’ vote choices. It also prevented knowledge of the outcome from shaping their responses.

The survey contained a vignette experiment. Respondents received different accounts of a real vandalism incident at Salman Khurshid’s residence. The accounts varied in whether violence was legitimized and whether the BJP was linked to violence or peaceful dialogue. This design allowed the researchers to compare reactions to different framings.

Political affiliation sharply separated Hindu voters’ reactions. When violence was presented as justified, Hindu supporters of the BJP approved more strongly of their party’s participation in it. They also became less approving of peaceful dialogue by their own party.

The numbers show the contrast. BJP supporters’ approval of peaceful dialogue fell from 0.35 to minus 0.14 on a scale from minus 1 to plus 1. Hindu voters who did not support the BJP moved in the opposite direction: their approval of a peaceful response increased from 0.36 to 0.53.

The difference was strongest among upper-caste Hindus, identified by the researchers as the BJP’s core voters. When violence was framed as justified, they approved the party’s participation but showed no net approval of peaceful dialogue. Without legitimation, Hindu BJP voters were indifferent between the responses.

Uttar Pradesh matters because its elections have importance far beyond the state itself. The state has more than 200 million inhabitants, making it India’s most populous state. Its size gives political events there an unusually broad social and electoral setting.

The article also notes that Uttar Pradesh would be the fifth most populous democracy in the world if it were a country. Its state legislative elections are widely seen as decisive for national politics. That makes the 2022 election a significant context for studying how voters respond to political violence and party messages.

The setting does not prove that the same effects occur everywhere. However, it shows how violence framing can operate in a major democratic electorate. The article compares these findings with research on Germany and points to related concerns about far-right and ethnonationalist rhetoric in the United States and Europe.

Partisan identity can shape how citizens interpret the same political action. Voters may be more willing to accept conduct by their own party, especially when party-aligned leaders describe it as defending the group against a threat or injustice. The study shows that this can extend to political violence.

Among Hindu BJP supporters, justified violence increased approval of the BJP’s participation. At the same time, approval of peaceful dialogue fell from 0.35 to minus 0.14. Hindu voters outside the BJP did the opposite, raising approval of a peaceful response from 0.36 to 0.53. The contrast points to partisan judgment.

The article argues that support for violent politicians may resemble other political attitudes motivated by partisanship. Violence was not automatically accepted by all Hindus. Instead, legitimation and party alignment together helped determine whether voters approved violence or rejected peace.

Political leaders influence whether citizens see violence as unacceptable or justified. By presenting an out-group as threatening or unjust, they can give violent action a defensive or moral appearance. This matters because citizens’ reactions are shaped not only by what happened, but also by how political actors explain it.

In the experiment, violence was linked to criticism of Hindu organizations. When that violence was legitimized, Hindu BJP supporters approved more of their party’s participation and rejected peaceful dialogue. When violence was not legitimized, even Hindu BJP voters were indifferent between the two responses. The framing changed the political meaning of the act.

The article therefore gives leaders a clear role in democratic outcomes. Daxecker says that condemning violence, or at least not legitimizing it, can make a big difference. The findings also suggest that mobilized religious grievances may encourage majority support for strategies that target minorities.