Abstract
Both scholars and international actors frequently stress the important role played by anti-civilian ideologies in escalating risks of mass atrocities against civilians. Yet strategies to combat and counter anti-civilian ideologies remain an uncertain and understudied component of atrocity prevention, and scepticism about their efficacy is to be expected. This paper provides a preliminary framework for thinking about strategies and interventions designed to counter the ideological causes of mass atrocities. First, I briefly clarify what existing research seems to suggest the role of ideology in mass atrocities is, and is not. I caution against cruder or overly strong theses about the role ideology plays, but clarify that whilst ideology’s actual causal impact is varying and complex, it is also significant. Second, I clarify what ideological interventions and strategies might be reasonably expected to do, and comparatively assess them against more dominant existing prevention tools to show that their preventive potential is sufficiently high to warrant usage. Finally, I provide guidelines on how the effort to formulate ideological strategies and interventions for preventing mass atrocities should best proceed.
Highlights
Scholars and international actors have frequently identified ideology as a factor which affects the risk of mass atrocities (Alvarez, 2008; Chalk & Jonassohn, 1990, p. 37; Gellately & Kiernan, 2003, p. 375; Malešević, 2006, p. 209; Shaw, 2003, pp. 40-41, 100-123; Straus, 2012a; Valentino, 2004, pp. 71-72)
If ideology plays a significant causal role in mass atrocities, it should be a logical object of Politics and Governance, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 67-84 study for mass atrocity prevention
I have argued that ideology plays a critical but complex role in shaping the probabilities of mass atrocities, and the extent and pattern of violence where atrocities do occur
Summary
Scholars and international actors have frequently identified ideology as a factor which affects the risk of mass atrocities (Alvarez, 2008; Chalk & Jonassohn, 1990, p. 37; Gellately & Kiernan, 2003, p. 375; Malešević, 2006, p. 209; Shaw, 2003, pp. 40-41, 100-123; Straus, 2012a; Valentino, 2004, pp. 71-72). Ideological strategies are unlikely to independently halt a genocide or mass atrocity on their own, but they have the potential to substantially frustrate campaigns of violence and thereby save lives, whilst carrying fewer risks and lower costs than more radical interventions. They ought to be a key element (one of several) in the atrocity prevention toolkit. Like all atrocity prevention tools, ideological interventions and strategies can be misused and abused, and carry moral risks, with free speech concerns salient Such concerns warrant debate, but again, they are not fundamentally deeper or more intractable than those attached to other established prevention policies. Instead the concept of ideology should be used expansively to grapple with the wide variety of distinctive systems of ideas through which individuals and groups engage in “actual political thinking” (Freeden, 2008, p. 197). I use ideological strategies to refer to an overall effort to counter the ideological causes of mass atrocities with respect to a particular context, and ideological interventions to refer to the specific tools that may be deployed as part of such a strategy
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
