Harnessing Our Power to End (HOPE) Political Violence

The primary strategy outlined in this guide is based on the “backfire” model. The goal of this model is to make sure that when any kind of political violence takes place, perpetrators face high costs for their actions. When their actions are counterproductive for them, their actions can be said to backfire.

The costs imposed on perpetrators can take two forms. First, there are direct losses—including a loss of political support, a loss of social standing, economic losses, and in some cases being held legally accountable. Second, there is increasing support, power, and mobilization by those who oppose political violence—for example by rallying around people who are targeted by political violence, engaging in greater voter registration and turnout, pushing for new laws to be passed and enforced, and supporting many other efforts that run counter to the goals of the perpetrators.

An advantage of the backfire approach is that it provides both offensive and defensive options. Through undermining perpetrators and simultaneously strengthening groups targeted by PV, it can shift incentives so that political violence is no longer profitable forindividuals and groups. Once the threat of political violence is seen as a political, economic, social, or legal liability, it becomes much easier to deter.

The backfire model is based on research done by scholar Brian Martin and others, and much of the content in this section draws from their work. Martin and others have examined instances around the world in which a wide range of abuses (especially those involving violence) backfired, as well as instances where they did not. Over time, Martin identified five methods that perpetrators rely on to try to inhibit outrage and minimize backfire against injustice. These methods are:

1. Cover-up – Hide the unjust actions, deny they ever happened, and prevent word from spreading about them.
2. Devaluation – Try to lower the social standing of the target.
3. Reinterpretation – Attempt to downplay the amount of damage caused by the injustice, portray the injustice as unavoidable or for a greater good, and/or deflect blame to others.
4. Official channels – Set up inquiries and investigations that move slowly, limit public visibility or input, rely on technical rules, and provide only the appearance of justice.
5. Intimidation and rewards – Threaten people who may speak out against injustice, and reward people for remaining silent.

Often these methods are effective at preventing or reducing backfire. However, sometimes the perpetrators’ tactics fail, and backfire occurs. When it does, it is often because people relied on five principles (which can be remembered as the “5 Rs” below) to heighten outrage and increase mobilization against injustice. These principles are:

1. Reveal – Expose the injustice.
2. Redeem – Validate the target.
3. Reframe – Interpret the event as an injustice.
4. Redirect – Mobilize support and avoid official channels.
5. Resist – Resist intimidation and bribes.

Each of these principles is discussed in general below. Then in the following chapter they are applied to the specific problem of political violence in the US.

The ‘5 Rs’ of Backfire

Below is a brief overview of each principle.

1. Reveal: Countering Cover-Up

Abusers try to cover up injustice. They claim that the injustice didn’t happen, or seek to reduce distribution of news about the injustice. In order for injustice to backfire, it must be revealed.

The methods used to do this will depend on specific circumstances—for example, in some cases, revealing can happen through research and other forms of evidence gathering, working with local media of all kinds, or through detailed interviews with people who have suffered abuse (and whose consent should be secured before sharing this information more widely). Sometimes activists can create conditions that make cover-up of PV more challenging, such as carrying cameras and planning ahead for sustained documentation of public actions, which alerts possible perpetrators in advance that they will be recorded.

2. Redeem: Countering Devaluation

Devaluation is “lowering the status or opinion of a person or object” with the goal of making violence or other abuse toward them seem more acceptable. Perpetrators attempt to devalue the people they abuse through a variety of means, including by sharing (directly or through rumors) damaging information—which may be false—about a person who was abused. They may also label a person as a terrorist, criminal, political extremist, or use other dehumanizing language. In doing so, they often play to prejudices that are present in society, such as racism and sexism. Perpetrators may further try to provoke a targeted person into saying or doing things that can be used against them.

The counter-tactic to this is to humanize (redeem) those who have been abused and to reduce the social distance between them and the broader audience.

Humanizing people, providing context and details about their lives, elevating their positive values (which they may share with the broader audience) and actions, and having others (especially those in roles that the audience trusts and respects) speak up on their behalf can all help to counter devaluation. Acts of redemption should be planned alongside those who have been dehumanized.

3. Reframe: Countering Reinterpretation by Perpetrators

Alongside devaluation, abusers will attempt to reinterpret an incident to make it seem like their abuse did not do much damage (minimizing), was necessary for the greater good (framing), or was not their fault at all (blaming). Sometimes outright lying about various details is also part of their repertoire.

Countering these efforts requires reframing. Documentation about the impact of and damage from the abuse can help neutralize the perpetrators’ narratives. Communicating why the abuse violates laws, widely held values, and threatens all of our safety and security is also vital. Communicating who should be held accountable for the abuse and reframing abuse from an individual problem to a systemic problem is also important.

Weaving these aspects together into clear narratives that trusted messengers can deliver can further increase impact. It is important to remember that while an injustice may seem obvious to activists, we should never assume that it is obvious to other audiences.

Therefore, activists must put facts into context by developing narratives that show the moral outrage of an abuse and mobilize a broader constituency to get off the sidelines.

4. Redirect: Not Relying on Official Channels to Deliver Justice

When efforts to cover up, devalue, and reinterpret fail, perpetrators try to divert action into official channels such as an investigation or inquiry. Perpetrators prefer inquiries that are internal and closed-door. However, even public and independent investigations can still result in decreased public mobilization. This is because they tend to work slowly, focus on technical procedures, rely on experts, and give an appearance that justice will be done. Therefore, relying on them can drain grassroots energy. Moreover, once people are demobilized, inquiries may become less aggressive in pursuing the truth.

In the face of such institutional processes, activists have many options, but the key point to remember is that activists must not rely solely on the process to deliver justice. Instead, they must continue to redirect public outrage to mobilize public action.

The full guide includes examples and ideas for action that can keep the issue alive among members of the public, so that those who oppose injustice continue to build their strength and exert ongoing pressure.

5. Resist: Standing Firm Against Intimidation and Bribery

A final tactic used by perpetrators to try to inhibit public concern is to threaten those who speak out or organize against injustice. They may also try to bribe, reward, or otherwise co-opt people into remaining silent or demobilizing. This may extend beyond just targeted activists— perpetrators may also try to silence activists’ family, friends, and colleagues.

Yet, threats and attempts to reward silence are risky for perpetrators, because activists who resist them can also turn these actions into catalysts for more backfire. As with other backfire tactics, preparation here is key.

Anticipating intimidation and rewards, activists can warn their friends, families, and colleagues of such efforts, prepare to document these efforts, and develop strategies to expose the corruption of perpetrators. Publicly acknowledging the fact that you are prepared for threats may actually have a deterrent effect on perpetrators, making them aware ahead of time that such tactics will be used against them in “the court of public opinion,” and possibly also even a court of law.

How Can Communities Maximize Backfire?

While there is no exact formula for applying the 5 Rs and local conditions will determine the strategies and tactics that you use, in general backfire is more likely to happen when we prepare for it. This can include participating in training in 5 Rs; building relationships with others; joining trusted networks that include people from all walks of life; and maintaining a commitment to nonviolence in the face of violent provocations.