Although there are widespread concerns about support for political violence among supporters of mainstream political parties, this topic remains largely under-researched.
Who are the people who show more support for political violence among the supporters of mainstream political parties?
This new article presents a study with a large sample of Victorians (Australia) to isolate the demographic characteristics, attitudes and fears that are associated with support for political violence among supporters of left-wing and right-wing parties, as well as people who do not identify with any political party.
Having negative attitudes to democracy is a consistent predictor of support for political violence among people who support right-wing parties, left-wing parties and people with no party affiliation.
Racist attitudes (i.e., negative attitudes to non-Europeans and negative attitudes to diversity) are a significant predictor of support for political violence among people with right-wing political preferences, and having negative attitudes to diversity and having experienced discrimination are a predictor for people with left-wing political preferences. Having anti-Muslim prejudice is a key predictor of support for political violence only in the no-affiliation group.
The fact that anti-Muslim attitudes were not significant predictors of support for political violence in the right-wing group might be explained by the fact that Islamophobia is widespread in Australia – especially among people who support right-wing parties – and not a position that is unique of individuals and groups that support political violence. For this reason, Australian far-right groups have been using an anti-Muslim agenda to recruit new members among supporters of mainstream right-wing parties.
Interestgly, the no-affiliation group presented social and political positions that were more similar to the left group than the right. It might be possible that, although the no-affiliation group was mostly composed of people who broadly align with left-wing positions, it included a minority of people who align with right-wing positions, and they were the ones that were more likely to support political violence. It is also possible that people in the no-affiliation group, who on average were less education and are older than the other groups, were more susceptible to perceive a cultural threat from Muslims as a consequence of the media discourses that conflate terrorism with Islam. Our interpretation is in line with research showing that people with no political preference are likely to mobilize with violent protest groups aligned with populist far-right views, such as the French Yellow Vests.
We were not expecting to find a significant association between negative attitudes to diversity and support for political violence in the group of left-wing parties supporters. Our data suggests that there is a small group of respondents on the left that have negative attitudes to diversity, and the majority of them would support political violence. In the Australian context, it is possible that a minority of people who vote for left-wing parties have negative attitudes to diversity: in recent, years, voting patterns have revealed that there has been a flow of voters shifting from the centre-left party ALP (Australian Labor Party) to the far-right party One Nation. Journalistic accounts also found that these voters were mainly people from the working class, worried about job security and concerned about immigration. It might be possible that our study identified a small group of people who still vote for a left-wing party but are concerned about diversity and immigration, and could potentially find an ideological alignment with a far-right party like One Nation on issues of immigration.
The unexpected finding that anti-diversity attitudes predict support for political violence among people supporting left-wing parties points to the heterogeneity of attitudes and views within political groups, and especially among those with extreme convictions.