Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Social determinants of health Social determinants of health in poverty Social determinants of mental health Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism White Male Transphobia Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Atheism Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Protestantism Rastafari Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Colombian Croat Filipino Fulani Finnish Georgian Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Antisemitism New Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Quebec Romani Romanian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh
Manifestations Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Anti-LGBTQ movemenet in the US Anti-trans movement in the UK Anti-Zionism Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime LGBTQ Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Dehumanization Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Medical model of disability autism Net bias Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

Political repression is the act of a state entity controlling a citizenry by force for political reasons, particularly for the purpose of restricting or preventing the citizenry's ability to take part in the political life of a society, thereby reducing their standing among their fellow citizens.^[1][2] Repression tactics target the citizenry who are most likely to challenge the political ideology of the state in order for the government to remain in control.^[3] In autocracies, the use of political repression is to prevent anti-regime support and mobilization.^[4] It is often manifested through policies such as human rights violations, surveillance abuse, police brutality, imprisonment, involuntary settlement, stripping of citizen's rights, lustration, and violent action or terror such as the murder, summary executions, torture, forced disappearance, and other extrajudicial punishment of political activists, dissidents, or general population.^[5] Direct repression tactics are those targeting specific actors who become aware of the harm done to them while covert tactics rely on the threat of citizenry being caught (wiretapping and monitoring).^[6] The effectiveness of the tactics differ: covert repression tactics cause dissidents to use less detectable opposition tactics^[7] while direct repression allows citizenry to witness and react to the repression.^[8] Political repression can also be reinforced by means outside of written policy, such as by public and private media ownership and by self-censorship within the public.

Where political repression is sanctioned and organised by the state, it may constitute state terrorism, genocide, politicide or crimes against humanity. Systemic and violent political repression is a typical feature of dictatorships, totalitarian states and similar regimes.^[9] While the use of political repression varies depending on the authoritarian regime, it is argued that repression is a defining feature and the foundation of autocracies by creating a power hierarchy between the leader and citizenry, contributing to the longevity of the regime.^[10] Repressive activities have also been found within democratic contexts as well.^[11][12] This can even include setting up situations where the death of the target of repression is the end result.^[13] If political repression is not carried out with the approval of the state, a section of government may still be responsible. Some examples are the FBI COINTELPRO operations from 1956 to 1971 and the Palmer Raids from 1919-1920.^[14][15][16]

In some states, "repression" can be an official term used in legislation or the names of government institutions. The Soviet Union had a legal policy of repression of political opposition defined in its penal code and Cuba under Fulgencio Batista had a secret police agency officially named the Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities. According to Soviet and communist studies scholar Stephen Wheatcroft, in the case of the Soviet Union terms such as "the terror", "the purges" and "repression" are used to refer to the same events. He believes the most neutral terms are repression and mass killings, although in Russian the broad concept of repression is commonly held to include mass killings and is sometimes assumed to be synonymous with it, which is not the case in other languages.^[17]

Political conflict strongly increases the likelihood of state repression. This is arguably the most robust finding in social science research on political repression. Civil wars are a strong predictor of repressive activity, as are other forms of challenges from non-government actors.^[18] States so often engage in repressive behaviors in times of civil conflict that the relationship between these two phenomena has been termed the "Law of Coercive Responsiveness".^[19] When their authority or legitimacy is threatened, regimes respond by overtly or covertly suppressing dissidents to eliminate the behavioral threat. State repression subsequently affects dissident mobilization, though the direction of this effect is still an open question. Some strong evidence suggests that repression suppresses dissident mobilization by reducing the capacity of challengers to organize, yet it is also feasible that challengers can leverage state repressive behavior to spur mobilization among sympathizers by framing repression as a new grievance against the state.^[20]

Political repression is often accompanied by violence, which might be legal or illegal according to domestic law.^[21] Violence can both eliminate political opposition directly by killing opposition members, or indirectly by instilling fear.

Political repression is sometimes accompanied with intolerance. This intolerance is manifested through discriminatory policies, human rights violations, police brutality, imprisonment, extermination, exile, extortion, terrorism, extrajudicial killing, summary execution, torture, forced disappearance and other punishments against political activists, dissidents, and populations in general.

Some regimes that govern societies experiencing sustained ethno-religious conflict may be consolidated on the basis of exclusionary notions of nationhood. In such discriminatory states, political right is generated through a distinction between citizens, who are afforded the rights and moral standing of “full persons,” and outsiders, or the “subpersons” of society.^[22] The privileges enjoyed by citizens are given meaning because they are denied to subpersons, on account of their perceived inferiority.^[23][24] The government thereby creates a political order that justifies and enables the dominance of citizens through the systemic “exploitation of [the] bodies, land, [and] resources [of noncitizens], and the denial of equal socioeconomic opportunities to them.”^[25] In this way, the regime operationalizes the domination and subordination of certain groups to establish its political authority. These repressive states distinguish between citizens and subpersons on the basis of socially agreed-upon conceptions of identity. Governments acquire legitimacy by expounding exclusionary notions of national identity, which sanctify the division between the citizenry and outsiders.^[26]

Because the fabrication of nationhood often requires a reorientation of existing group identities, regimes will construe their national identity by taking advantage of soft power variables.^[27][28] Muhammad Pervez defines soft power variables as attractive and intangible power resources like religion, cultural norms, and institutions, that appeal to people and encourage their compliance.^[29] Soft power variables are constructed through the social imagination, meaning they are arbitrary and malleable. For this reason, when the citizenry utilizes soft power variables to contrive its national identity, it induces “securitized subjectivity,” whereby “subjects in a state desire securitization when they are afraid or feel a threat to the existence of their identity. In this situation, every self-identity requires a threat from others.”^[30] State leaders, to further consolidate their political power and solidify the domination of the citizenry, deliberately vilify the subpersons of the political order and ensure a continued environment of securitized subjectivity.^[31] By manufacturing an enduring security dilemma between dominant and subordinated groups, oppressive regimes convey to dominant groups that the protection provided by the state is necessary for the dominant identity group’s/nation state’s survival,^[32][33] which legitimizes the state. In this way, through the manipulation of soft power variables, oppressive regimes manufacture a nationalism that is dependent on the demarcation between dominant and subordinate identity groups.

When political repression is sanctioned and organized by the state, situations of state terrorism, genocide and crimes against humanity can be reached. Systematic and violent political repression is a typical feature of dictatorships, totalitarian states and similar regimes. In these regimes, acts of political repression can be carried out by the police and secret police, the army, paramilitary groups and death squads. Sometimes regimes considered democratic exercise political repression and state terrorism to other states as part of their security policy.^[34]

Direct repression is a form of repression where the state targets an opposing political actor by obvious violent action. The target is clearly aware of the harm that is caused to their life and livelihood. Direct repression does not exclusively occur within the boundaries of a state, but also across borders.^[35] In personalist dictatorships, initiating conflicts with other states and people outside their own borders is more common because of lack of accountability via extremely limited or no competitive elections.^[36]

Indirect repression relies on the threat of violence which constitutes harassment, intimidation, and administrative blockages. These tactics tend to be non-violent, yet still are built to control citizenry.^[37]

Individuals indirectly exposed to repression self-report higher trust in the leader and ruling party. This phenomenon was observed in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, where the effects of repression increased approaching elections, even with deteriorating social and economic conditions.^[38] A large signifier of whether or not repression is successful in a state is evidence of preference falsification– where the preference expressed by an individual in public diverges from their private preference.^[39] In North Korea, accused of highly repressive activity in media and public culture, 100% of citizens vote in ‘no choice’ parliamentary elections so the state can identify defectors. Citizens are required to show complete devotion to North Korea's current leader and sacrifice their safety if they choose to speak out.^[40] Repressive measures including prison camps, torture, forced labor, and threats of execution are just some of the costs of defection.^[41] The Chinese Communist Party implements extensive surveillance measures in the People's Republic of China, including Internet censorship, camera monitoring, and other forms of mass surveillance. These practices involve the use of technologies such as AI, facial recognition, fingerprint identification, voice and iris recognition, big data analysis, DNA testing, and are closely linked to the Social Credit System in mainland China.^[42][43] At the same time, many domestic Chinese technology companies are also involved in the country's large-scale surveillance programs. These primarily include companies such as Hikvision, Sensetime, Huawei, ZTE, and others.^{[44][45][46][47]}

Articles

• Understanding Covert Repressive Action: The Case of the U.S. Government against the Republic of New Africa (186kb PDF file) by Christian Davenport, Professor, University of Maryland.
• State Repression and Political Order by Christian Davenport, Professor, University of Maryland.

Journals

• Special issue of Interface: a journal for and about social movements on repression and social movements.
• Bartusevičius, Henrikas; van Leeuwen, Florian; Petersen, Michael Bang (June 2023). "Political repression motivates anti-government violence". Royal Society Open Science. 10 (6). doi:10.1098/rsos.221227.

Books

• Davenport, Christian; Appel, Benjamin (2022). The Death and Life of State Repression: Understanding Onset, Escalation, Termination, and Recurrence. Oxford University Press.
• Goldstein, Robert Justin, Political Repression in Modern America (University of Illinois Press, 1978, 2001) ISBN 0-8467-0301-7.
• Jensen, Joan M. Army Surveillance in America, 1775 - 1980. New Haven. Yale University Press. 1991. ISBN 0-300-04668-5.
• Talbert Jr. Roy. Negative Intelligence: The Army and the American Left, 1917 - 1941. Jackson. University Press of Mississippi, 1991. ISBN 0-87805-495-2.
• Irvin, Cynthia L. Militant Nationalism between movement and party in Ireland and the Basque Country. University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
• Seigel, Micol. 2018. Violence Work: State Power and the Limits of Police. Duke University Press.