Political leaders’ responses to violence can influence public trust and deepen – or ease – political divisions
Political violence is on the rise around the world. Recent events in Australia and Europe have highlighted how political conflict can spill into violence, raising questions about how leaders can protect public safety and maintain trust in political institutions.
Unfortunately, political violence is not rare, according to Gabriele Gratton, Professor of Politics and Economics at UNSW Business School and founder and co-director of the UNSW Resilient Democracy Lab.
“Worldwide, tensions are rising,” he said. “No political violence is ever compatible with democracy. In a democratic context, attacks on political leaders and representatives, whatever the circumstances, are acts of intimidation aimed at silencing the voices of other citizens.”
But Prof. Gratton also warned that combating political violence in the long run means addressing the shortcomings of political systems.
“Looking at the recent events in Europe, and in particular in France, when thousands of citizens engage in political violence and millions tolerate or justify it, democracy is not simply being violated. Its institutions are also evidently failing to maintain and promote peaceful confrontation,” he said.
Prof. Gratton also noted that how political leaders respond to episodes of violence matters. “Unfortunately, political leaders too often react by further alienating opponents instead of bringing them into a democratic and constructive debate,” he said.
“Our own research at the UNSW Resilient Democracy Lab shows that messages from political leaders systematically intensify political polarisation and tribalism over social media, amplifying partisan rhetoric instead of bringing people together.”
How politicians should respond publicly to violence
Hasin Yousaf, Scientia Senior Lecturer in the School of Economics at UNSW Business School and a Senior Research Fellow at the Resilient Democracy Lab, said that what politicians say in the first hours after an act of violence “is not an afterthought”.
“Their first responsibility should be to acknowledge the victims and condemn violence consistently. Most importantly, they should avoid assigning motives or blaming a wider group, especially the groups on the opposite side of their political spectrum,” said Dr Yousaf.
For instance, in the case of the attack on Federal MP Helen Haines, he observed that authorities have described the act as deliberate – but have also stressed that the motive (currently) remains unknown.
In previous co-authored research, which analysed 4.75 million social media posts about 57 mass shootings in the US, Dr Yousaf said that public discussion becomes more partisan and more polarised almost immediately after politicians enter the debate.
“Importantly, the effects are thrice as large if the politicians themselves use dividing language,” said Dr Yousaf, who cited separate research that found inflammatory political campaigns and racialised rhetoric can spill over into the behaviour of public institutions and persist for weeks.
“The lesson is that political language is not costless. Leaders should refrain from stigmatising or using a tragedy to score an immediate partisan point,” he said.
What political unrest reveals about democratic health
Not all episodes of political violence are the same, according to Prof. Gratton. Some emerge from organised anti-democratic fringes, while others arise from disorganised but generalised discontent and alienation.
Looking at recent events in Australia, the US and Europe, he pointed to numerous warning signs: violence becoming normalised; opponents being treated as enemies; and democratic institutions themselves becoming the battleground, with courts, the media, elections, or the public service perceived as obstacles to democracy.
“Inflation and war heighten insecurity, and when governments seem unable to protect living standards or physical safety, voters become more receptive to leaders promising decisive, less constrained action,” he said.
“Our research at the UNSW Resilient Democracy Lab shows that support for illiberal leaders is associated with economic insecurity and fear of violence. Political violence can accelerate democratic backsliding by deepening fear and providing a justification for illiberal responses.”
Current political unrest and violence in democratic states
Dr Yousaf said that one broader lesson “that we should be very careful about” is simple explanations for political violence and unrest: “The events we are seeing in Australia, France and the United States are not identical,” he said.
In France, large demonstrations over schools, public services, and the cost of living have been accompanied by serious rioting. “The key democratic challenge is to isolate and punish violence without treating peaceful protest or broader social grievances as illegitimate,” he said.
The American experience shows that repeated violence does not necessarily produce political consensus. This can make an issue more salient while pushing existing political camps further apart, Dr Yousaf observed.
“What concerns me more in democratic societies is the possibility of a feedback loop. Violence makes particular issues suddenly much more salient, and politicians then have strong incentives to polarise further,” he said.
“Australia should be particularly wary of that feedback loop. For a number of decades, Australia has enjoyed a peaceful and relatively less polarised political environment. However, recent conditions are ripe for political divisions.
“Even before investigators establish the motive in the Haines case, the attack and the documented rise in threats and harassment directed at parliamentarians remind us that an open and accessible democracy can also be vulnerable.”
