Research
Job Market Paper
Let Activists Protest and Speak: How Peaceful Actors Curb Militant Support. Revised and Resubmitted to the American Journal of Political Science.
Abstract
Armed militant organizations and affiliated peaceful activist groups often co-exist within dissident movements. Although states tend to identify and repress activists within these movements as fronts for their militant counterparts, there is little research on how activist actions or the repression they face affect support for militant organizations. In this paper, I argue that state repression of peaceful activism boosts support for militant organizations, whilst activist mobilizing propaganda promoting peaceful means diminishes support for them. To test these expectations, I conducted a list experiment in Southeast Turkey, where the militant organization PKK and the activist political party HDP garner significant support. My research design presents sympathizer individuals with treatment videos that vary in the degrees of state repression of activists, and activist mobilizing propaganda. Results demonstrate that the state repression of peaceful activists leads to an immediate increase in support for the militant organization. Conversely, when activists advocate for peaceful mobilization, support for the militant organization diminishes. These findings demonstrate that the immediate attitudinal influence of powerful activist rhetoric is the opposite of what the state justification for its repression rests upon: if activists can convey their calls for peaceful mobilization without state repression, they can diminish support for their militant counterparts. Publications
Peace Negotiations and Civilian Targeting. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Online First.
Displacement, not Obstruction: How States Manage a Complex Media Landscape. Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy (with Afiq bin Oslan)
Trust, Trust Repair, and Public Health: A Scoping Review. Frontiers in Public Health (with David Carter, Jimin Ding, Michelle Doering, Michael Esposito, Aubrey Fisher, Matthew Gabel, Mark Huffman, Peter Kalulu, Caitlin McMurtry, Pradeep Sopory, Grace Whitter)
Under Review
The Peacekeeping Dilemma: Understanding the Challenges of UN Peacekeeping in Modern Conflicts (with William G. Nomikos and Rob Williams)
Abstract
Though existing research finds that UN peacekeeping operations promote peace, newer work calls this finding into question. We address this tension with a new theoretical framework and a novel empirical strategy that disentangles the causal effects of peacekeeping. We argue that peacekeepers may resolve one type of conflict while unintentionally causing outbreaks of other types of violence. We examine the case of Mali, the site of a multidimensional UN peacekeeping operation and intrastate conflict since 2013. We employ a geographic regression discontinuity design around the border of Mali and Burkina Faso to estimate the causal effect of deploying peacekeepers. We find that UN peacekeeping reduces conflict between nonstate rebel groups as well as communal violence between civilians. However, we also show that peacekeepers do not decrease violence between governments and rebels. More troubling, we find no evidence that UN peacekeeping decreases violence against civilians, regardless of the identity of the perpetrator. Manuscript
Strike When they Aren't Looking: Great Power Crises and Threats to Rule (with David Carter)
Abstract
Although regime threats such as civil conflict and coup d'etat are widely studied, their systemic links to global crises receive relatively little attention. We argue that episodes of instability among great powers ripples through the international system and foments violent threats to rule in less powerful states. During periods of systemic stability, great powers actively maintain influence over allied political factions in states within their sphere of influence, providing financial and security assistance. When great powers experience instability and crisis, they reduce engagement in the internal politics of less powerful states, which provides an opening for violent challenges from regime opponents. We assess our arguments with both new and existing indicators of systemic instability, showing that periods of economic and security instability among great powers are associated with a heightened risk of both civil conflict onset and regime change coup attempts in smaller states. Our work offers a novel explanation for the emergence of threats to rule, integrating the literatures on great power politics, civil conflict and coup d'etat, while also demonstrating why regime threats not only cluster geographically but also cluster in time. How Foreign Policy Crisis Shapes Public Opinion on Social Media (with Amaan Charaniya, Rex Deng, Jin Kim, Gechun Lin, William G. Nomikos) APSA Foreign Policy Section 2022 Best Paper Award
Abstract
Political scientists have long debated whether and how foreign policy shapes public opinion in democracies. Although some scholars suggest that domestic politics does not affect how leaders in democracies conduct foreign policy at all, an emerging consensus has in recent years documented the fundamental interplay between international politics and public opinion. According to this line of thinking, domestic audiences use foreign policy, leaders' decision-making during international crises, and the consequences of those decisions to evaluate leaders. These evaluations, in turn, constrain the behavior of leaders on the international stage since they wish to remain in office. While it is clear that foreign policy impacts the public opinion toward the political leadership making those decisions, the mechanisms specifying how remain subject to debate. Moreover, the growing importance of social media in electoral politics remains largely unaccounted for in this literature. This article begins to fill this gap by providing a theory and evidence from social media data that explains how social media conditions the effect of foreign policy on public opinion. To test our argument, we examine social media responses toward the U.S. decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in August 2021. The withdrawal is a salient policy event with important implications for studying the role of international politics in shaping public opinion over time. We use a dataset of 7 million tweets to measure the public opinion toward the withdrawal. Instead of relying on a specified group of users, we collect all tweets in the United States sent between August and September of 2021 that mention a list of keywords related to the Afghan withdrawal. This approach allows us to collect the most comprehensive corpus of tweets related to the Afghan withdrawal. Working Paper
Peacetime Ideology, Wartime Agitation: How Militants Tailor Propaganda to Conflict Intensity
Abstract
What determines the type of propaganda militants use to influence their audiences? When do militants use systematic argumentation and critical reasoning, and when do they prefer resorting to emotional rhetoric? I argue that militants use two types of propaganda interchangeably, depending on whether they are waging a war campaign. First, militants use emotional propaganda at times of intensified conflict with the state to mobilize mass support for their war agenda. Second, militants use ideological propaganda during comparatively peaceful periods. Militant groups accomplish two goals by using these propaganda strategies selectively: 1) mobilize the masses and 2) maintain loyalty. I test this theory on the conflict between the Turkish State Forces (TSF) and the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). I find support for these expectations using a novel dataset of Kurdistan Worker's Party's (PKK) official journals published monthly between 1982 and 2020. I measure propaganda using a combination of a dictionary-based approach, a semi-supervised topic model, and supervised text analysis. The results suggest that the PKK is more likely to use ideological propaganda when they suffer fewer fatalities, and emotional propaganda when they experience more fatalities. This paper contributes to the literature by developing a theory of militant propaganda applicable across the ideological spectrum and testing it on a 40-year conflict using a comprehensive dataset of militant propaganda materials and death counts. The Impact of Court Packing on Turkish Constitutional Court Decisions
Abstract
Using an original and comprehensive dataset, I measure Turkish Constitutional Court justices' ideal points in a two dimensional ideology space. I show that justices' ideologies and background characteristics are significant determinants of their votes and dissents in annulment action cases between 2002 and 2016. The more restrainist and liberal a justice is, the more likely they will vote for the unconstitutionality of AKP legislation. The main question this study seeks to answer is whether the impact of justices' ideologies on their votes has been significantly different after the act of court packing in 2010. The analyses show that the probability of voting for the unconstitutionality of AKP legislation between 2010 and 2016 is significantly lower than the cases between 2002 and 2010. 