PERSPECTIVE: Risks of election violenceAn Analytic Framework for Assessing Risks of U.S. Post-Election Violence
Today and the days ahead are the most consequential period for the United States in at least a generation. Kyle Murphy writes that when he served as a senior analyst for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, heI developed frameworks to evaluate the risk of election-related instability overseas. “As a National Security Council staff member at the White House, I relied on similar tools to help prepare for and organize U.S. government support for nine elections in West Africa.” He applied these tools to this year’s U.S. presidential election.
Today and the days ahead are the most consequential period for the United States in at least a generation. Kyle Murphy writes in Just Security that many around the world are watching with us to see who we are and what our choice could mean for their own struggles for responsive and inclusive democracy. “Many of us watching should be looking not only to see who wins, but to monitor the risk of post-election violence and take action to prevent it.”
He adds:
When I served as a senior analyst for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, I developed frameworks to evaluate the risk of election-related instability overseas. As a National Security Council staff member at the White House, I relied on similar tools to help prepare for and organize U.S. government support for nine elections in West Africa.
Evaluating the likelihood of violent conflict requires considering a variety of factors including the context, indicators of risk, potential triggers, and sources of resilience. The U.S. election is happening in a context defined by irresponsible political leadership, entrenched polarization, systemic racism and inequality, and concurrent health and economic crises that have brought into focus underlying risk factors for political violence. Despite these risks, the United States still has comparatively substantial resources and a long but deeply imperfect history of commitment to governing ideals that provide resilience.
The risk indicators below span five categories: political leader responses, perceptions of electoral and judicial legitimacy, armed actor use of force, public sentiment and media, and external influences. These variables interact and change, and they should therefore be considered together. They should also be used to identify potential triggering events that usually precede a turn to widespread violent conflict. For example, government security force abuses can be a trigger, and these indicators could help signal an elevated risk if the president directs federal forces to crack-down on protests over judicial action that a portion of the public views as illegitimate.
