Full Answer Section

Early institutional explanations emphasized the role of state institutions in regulating conflict and preventing violence. However, as research has evolved, scholars have expanded their focus to include non-state institutions, such as political parties, civil society organizations, and customary institutions.

Ideational Explanations

Ideational explanations emphasize the role of ideas, beliefs, and values in motivating political violence. These explanations argue that individuals and groups may resort to violence when they perceive that their ideological goals cannot be achieved through peaceful means.

Ideological explanations have drawn upon various intellectual traditions, including nationalism, Marxism, and religious extremism, to understand the motivations behind political violence. They have also explored how ideologies are disseminated, manipulated, and contested within societies.

Individual Explanations

Individual explanations focus on the psychological motivations of individuals who engage in political violence. These explanations explore factors such as personal grievances, psychological distress, and the desire for power or recognition as potential drivers of violence.

Individual explanations have also examined the role of social factors, such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination, in creating conditions that may make individuals more susceptible to radicalization and violence.

Evolution of Explanatory Frameworks

Over time, the use of institutional, ideational, and individual explanations for political violence has evolved in several ways:

1. Integration of Explanations: Scholars have increasingly recognized that these explanations are not mutually exclusive and often interact with each other. Political violence can be caused by a combination of institutional failures, ideological motivations, and individual factors.

2. Contextual Sensitivity: There has been a growing recognition that the causes of political violence are context-specific and cannot be reduced to a single factor. Scholars have emphasized the importance of understanding the historical, social, and political context in which violence occurs.

3. Multicausal Models: Researchers have developed more sophisticated models that incorporate multiple factors from different explanatory frameworks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of political violence.

4. Role of Agency: There has been a growing emphasis on the role of individual agency in political violence. While institutions and ideologies may create conditions that increase the risk of violence, individuals still make choices about whether or not to engage in violent behavior.

Conclusion

The study of political violence remains a complex and challenging field, but the use of institutional, ideational, and individual explanations has provided valuable insights into the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. As research continues to evolve, these frameworks will likely continue to be refined and integrated to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the causes of political violence.