How Other Countries Have Reduced Political Violence

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The gunshot that killed Charlie Kirk at 12:20 p.m. on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University was more than an individual tragedy. It was a horrifying culmination of a well-documented trend.

Recent data suggest political violence in the United States is rising, especially threats and plots targeting elected officials and government institutions. According to the CSIS, there were 21 terrorist attacks or plots against government targets motivated by partisan political beliefs between 2016 and April 2024—compared to just two in the prior decades.

The Government Accountability Office reports that from September 2023 to July 2024, domestic extremists carried out at least four attacks and disrupted seven additional plots, while the number of open FBI domestic terrorism cases ballooned to 9,049. Independent research also indicates that political violence incidents are geographically clustered, with some U.S. counties experiencing much higher concentrations over the past decade. Concurrently, public concern is mounting: a 2025 survey by Pew found that 85% of Americans believe politically motivated violence is increasing.

Other societies, torn by seemingly intractable violence, have managed to pull back from the brink. Their experiences offer lessons for understanding how America might heal its deepest wounds.

In This Article

• Several countries that experienced deep conflict (like South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Colombia) used comprehensive peace processes combining justice, power‑sharing, demobilization, and economic reform to reduce violence.
• Approaches included: truth and reconciliation commissions to confront past abuses; political reforms to include marginalized groups; disarmament and reintegration for former fighters; and social and economic investments (land reform, development, infrastructure) to address root causes of conflict.
• These efforts didn’t just stop fighting — they aimed for “positive peace”: stable institutions, political representation, and social justice.
• The article suggests that these international examples form a “global toolkit for peace,” offering lessons other societies (including the United States) might draw on in dealing with political violence.

So What?

• Sustainable reduction of political violence requires more than security crackdowns — justice, inclusion, and economic equity are essential to address underlying grievances.
• Political inclusion and fair institutions reduce incentives for violence by giving people peaceful paths to express identity and grievances.
• Reintegration of former combatants and reparative justice help societies heal and avoid cycles of revenge or marginalization.
• Economic and social reforms (jobs, land rights, development) help eliminate structural inequalities that often fuel conflict.
• Even societies with extreme past violence can transition toward stable peace — meaning long-term commitment to justice, democracy, and social investment can transform deep conflicts into peaceful, pluralistic societies.

A Global Toolkit for Peace

The journey from violent conflict to sustainable peace is among the most difficult challenges a society can undertake. While no two conflicts are identical, decades of international experience have produced common tools and principles for navigating this terrain.

South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Colombia represent a powerful evolution in global understanding of conflict resolution. Each faced unique circumstances, yet their peace processes grappled with shared fundamental questions: How does a society account for past atrocities without igniting revenge cycles? How can political power be restructured to give all sides a stake in the system? How are fighters reintegrated into civilian life? How are underlying injustices addressed to prevent conflict recurrence?

Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation

At the heart of any transition from conflict lies the question of the past. How does a nation account for unspeakable violence? A purely punitive approach can be impossible in practice and risk reigniting conflict. Conversely, blanket amnesty can feel like profound injustice to victims, undermining peace’s legitimacy.

South Africa’s Restorative Justice Model

In the early 1990s, as apartheid crumbled, South Africa stood on the edge of racial civil war. The outgoing white government demanded blanket amnesty while the victorious ANC and victimized Black majority sought justice and accountability.

The negotiated solution was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a groundbreaking experiment in “restorative justice.” Established by the 1995 Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, the TRC had a threefold mandate: investigate gross human rights violations from 1960-1994; facilitate amnesty for individuals making full disclosure of politically motivated acts; and recommend reparations for victims.

The process was intentionally public and transparent. For two years, the commission held televised hearings across the country, where victims told stories of torture, murder, and loss, and perpetrators confessed to crimes in chilling detail.

The TRC’s greatest accomplishment was this act of public storytelling. It created an undeniable official record of apartheid’s horrors, countering decades of state denialism. For many victims, speaking the truth publicly and having their suffering acknowledged was powerful and healing.

However, the TRC model faced profound criticism. The commission’s narrow focus on “gross human rights violations”—primarily torture, killings, and abductions—ignored systemic, institutional, and economic violence of apartheid itself. This focus on individual “bad apples” allowed most white South Africans to distance themselves from systemic crimes, positioning themselves as “betrayed” by their government rather than confronting their complicity.

Furthermore, the TRC’s reparations recommendations were largely ignored, and its failure to address foundational economic inequality has proven its most damaging legacy. Today, South Africa remains one of the world’s most unequal societies, with wealth and land still overwhelmingly concentrated in white hands.

Colombia’s Victim-Centered Evolution

The Colombian peace process, culminating in the 2016 FARC accord, represents a direct evolution from earlier models, consciously designed to address shortcomings observed in South Africa and elsewhere. After five decades of brutal conflict, leaving nearly 8 million victims, negotiators understood that lasting peace required more robust and holistic justice approaches.

The result was the “Comprehensive System for Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition,” a multi-pronged institutional architecture without parallel in previous peace agreements. This system includes: a Truth Commission investigating conflict patterns; a unit searching for disappeared persons; comprehensive reparation programs; and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP).

The SJP fundamentally departs from the South African model by explicitly prohibiting amnesties for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Perpetrators who come forward early, tell the full truth, and contribute to repairing harm receive more lenient “restorative” sentences, while those denying responsibility face traditional prison sentences up to 20 years.

Perhaps most profound was the procedural inclusion of victims. Unlike previous negotiations where victims’ rights were afterthoughts, in Colombia, victim delegations were flown to Havana peace talks to give direct testimony to negotiators. This ensured their demands for truth, justice, and reparations became cornerstones rather than peripheral issues.

This evolution reflects a crucial lesson: psychological and political reconciliation cannot be sustained if the material and judicial needs of those who suffered most are not met.

Rewriting the Rules of Power

Political violence often erupts when significant populations feel existing systems offer no peaceful path to achieve core objectives or protect fundamental identity. Ending such conflicts requires fundamental rewriting of power rules.

Northern Ireland’s Power-Sharing Blueprint

For 30 years, the Troubles tore Northern Ireland apart over an intractable constitutional question: should Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom or unite with Ireland? This was a winner-take-all struggle over sovereignty and national identity where one side’s victory meant the other’s total defeat.

The genius of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement was that it didn’t try to definitively “solve” this question. Instead, it created a framework where both communities could see their core aspirations and identities protected, regardless of the final constitutional outcome.

This was achieved through several innovations:

The Principle of Consent: The agreement affirmed Northern Ireland was part of the UK, but stipulated this status would change if and when majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted for unity. For Unionists, this provided present security through recognized majority status. For Nationalists, it provided a legitimate, peaceful, democratic pathway to their ultimate goal.

Identity Recognition: The agreement enshrined the “birthright of all people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may choose,” confirming their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship. This meant one could be fully Irish while living within the UK. Cultural and national identity no longer had to be subsumed by constitutional status.

Three-Stranded Power-Sharing: The GFA established sophisticated, multi-layered institutions ensuring neither community could dominate the other:

• Strand 1: A devolved Assembly and power-sharing Executive requiring cross-community consent
• Strand 2: North-South bodies managing all-island cooperation
• Strand 3: East-West institutions managing Ireland-UK relationships

Police Reform: The Royal Ulster Constabulary, overwhelmingly Protestant and deeply distrusted by Nationalists, was replaced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland with new emblems, oath, and mandate to recruit more Catholics.

The GFA’s implementation has been fragile, with power-sharing institutions collapsing for long periods due to political disputes. Many ambitious commitments, such as a Bill of Rights, remain unimplemented decades later.

Despite challenges, the GFA’s core achievement is undeniable: it created a system where deeply divergent identities could coexist without feeling mutually threatened. It successfully transformed an existential war over identity into a difficult but peaceful political negotiation.

From Combatant to Citizen

Ending war requires the painstaking work of transforming soldiers into civilians. This Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) process involves not just collecting weapons, but the social, economic, and psychological work of helping former combatants build viable lives outside armed groups.

Colombia’s Comprehensive DDR Model

The Colombian agreement with FARC was meticulous in DDR design, understanding its success was critical to building public trust and ensuring conflict wouldn’t restart.

Disarmament: The agreement laid out a clear 180-day timetable for FARC to move fighters into 26 designated “Transitional Local Zones” and surrender arms in three phases. The entire process was monitored by UN-led international verification, with the UN taking possession of all FARC weaponry, later melted down for peace monuments.

Reintegration: The accord provided comprehensive support, including economic assistance, social security access, education, housing, and family reunification based on the socioeconomic census of ex-combatants. This included one-off “normalization allowances,” temporary monthly income for 24 months, and grants for individual or collective economic projects.

The Sociology of Recognition

While economic and social programs are necessary, they’re not sufficient. Successful reintegration is fundamentally a social process contingent on a “struggle for recognition.”

Former fighters must undergo three transformations: social identity transformation from combatant to citizen; behavioral transformation ceasing violence use; and network transformation reducing militia contact while increasing community relations.

This process can fail if society denies ex-combatants basic recognition: love and care within families, respect for equal citizenship rights, and social esteem for community contributions. Ex-combatants receiving benefits but remaining socially ostracized, denied employment, and treated with suspicion experience “misrecognition” that can drive re-offending.

This lens provides insight for understanding political violence challenges, including in the United States. While the U.S. lacks traditional paramilitary groups, it has millions feeling politically disenfranchised, socially disrespected, and economically abandoned. This “misrecognition” by perceived elites fuels extremist movements that offer validation and dignity through grievance narratives.

Tackling Economic Roots

While political conflicts are expressed through ideology, religion, or identity language, their roots are often nourished by economic injustice. Protracted violence is frequently fueled by deep grievances over poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity. Addressing these economic drivers is not optional but central to long-term peace success.

Colombia’s Rural Reform Ambition

The first point of the 2016 Colombian accord was “Towards a New Colombian Countryside: Comprehensive Rural Reform”. Negotiators recognized that FARC, founded in 1964 as a peasant self-defense movement, was a direct product of Colombia’s failure to address extreme land concentration and rural neglect.

The reform included:

• A Land Fund acquiring and redistributing 3 million hectares over 12 years
• Massive programs formalizing 7 million hectares of property titles
• Vast public investment in rural infrastructure, health, education, and connectivity
• Comprehensive development plans for agricultural production and marketing

The goal was not merely ending fighting but “reversing conflict effects and changing conditions that led to violence persistence”. The IMF projected successful implementation could significantly boost inclusive growth long term.

South Africa’s Unfinished Business

The South African experience provides a cautionary tale. While the TRC confronted apartheid’s political crimes, the democratic transition left the economic architecture largely intact. The initial Reconstruction and Development Programme was soon followed by more orthodox, market-oriented policies focused on fiscal restraint and foreign investment.

While achieving macroeconomic stability, these policies failed to generate enough jobs or alter fundamental wealth distribution. Land reform moved at a glacial pace; South Africa remains the world’s most unequal country with wealth still concentrated in white hands. This persistent disparity fuels disillusionment and creates fertile ground for populist politics.

Northern Ireland’s Mixed Peace Dividend

In Northern Ireland, the GFA delivered tangible dividends in several areas. Violence cessation spurred private investment, unemployment fell dramatically, and new industries flourished. This progress was aided by external support, including EU PEACE programmes and U.S. investment through the International Fund for Ireland.

However, the dividend was uneven and didn’t solve the underlying structural weaknesses. Northern Ireland still suffers from the UK’s highest economic inactivity rate and has lagged in productivity growth.

These cases reveal a crucial sequence: political agreements are necessary but not sufficient. Even well-designed accords may fail without basic state capacity—effective institutions providing security, enforcing contracts, and delivering public services. Peace agreements ignoring economic justice risk creating “negative peace”—mere absence of fighting—rather than “positive peace” of a just, stable, prosperous society.

Lessons for America

The United States is not in civil war. It lacks paramilitary armies to demobilize or post-conflict truth commissions to establish. Solutions forged in Bogotá, Belfast, and Pretoria cannot be imported wholesale.

However, principles underpinning these peace processes offer powerful frameworks for diagnosing and treating political violence in America. These experiences provide a clear three-part lesson: reducing political violence requires simultaneous efforts at the elite, civic, and institutional levels.

The Primacy of Leadership

The most direct way to prevent political violence is for leaders to insist on nonviolence. This responsibility falls on politicians, party officials, media personalities, and cultural figures. While many may believe political violence is justifiable abstractly, far fewer will act on that belief. The cues they receive from leaders are critical.

When politicians use violent language, paint opposition as existential enemies, or fail to clearly denounce violence by their side, it serves to mainstream individuals who would normally be on society’s margins. The use of rhetoric invoking anger, contempt, and disgust—emotions removing psychological inhibitions to violence—is particularly dangerous.

The Council on Foreign Relations identifies “existential political rhetoric” as a primary warning indicator for election violence, as followers can interpret it as implicit calls to arms.

Conversely, when leaders use inclusive language and repent for past violent rhetoric, supporters follow suit. The most effective condemnations come from within one’s own “tribe”—a Republican denouncing right-wing violence is more influential than a Democrat doing the same.

Rebuilding Social Fabric

Beneath elite rhetoric lies a social context where violence becomes thinkable. In America, this is defined by extreme “affective polarization.” While Americans aren’t as ideologically divided on specific policies as commonly believed, they’ve developed intense dislike, distrust, and animosity toward opposing party members.

Evidence-based strategies for reducing this polarization include:

Correcting Misperceptions: Partisans hold wildly inaccurate views of the other party’s demographics and beliefs. Providing accurate information about composition and median views can significantly reduce hostility.

Highlighting Common Ground: Emphasizing areas of broad cross-partisan agreement and activating shared identities that transcend partisanship—being parents, veterans, community members—can override partisan animosity.

Encouraging Perspective-Taking: Media narratives and dialogues encouraging people to imagine the other side’s life and perspective can increase empathy and reduce prejudice.

Reforming Information Ecosystems: Social media platform design often rewards outrage and creates echo chambers. Addressing this requires better content moderation, increased media literacy, and support for trusted local journalism.

Restoring Faith in Democratic Rules

Sustainable peace rests on shared faith in legitimate institutions managing conflict nonviolently. When people believe systems are fair, rules apply equally, and they have genuine voice, they’re far less likely to resort to violence. When that faith erodes—when systems seem “rigged,” “corrupt,” or “weaponized”—anti-democratic and violent solutions gain appeal.

The United States is experiencing a profound crisis of faith in core democratic institutions. Trust in elections, justice systems, law enforcement, and media has fallen to historic lows. The CFR report highlights that key warning indicators include political leaders casting doubt on electoral process integrity, “pre-bunking” potential losses as fraud evidence.

Long-term political violence reduction in America is inseparable from rebuilding institutional trust through:

Strengthening Electoral Integrity: This involves ensuring voting system security and increasing transparency through reforms, making processes more uniform and less prone to partisan manipulation.

Reinforcing Rule of Law: Consistently upholding impartial justice principles where law applies equally regardless of political affiliation, wealth, or status. This requires both vigorous prosecution of political violence and leader’s commitment to respecting judicial outcomes.

Investing in Community Solutions: The ultimate antidote to political violence is healthy civic life. Community violence intervention programs using public health approaches and trusted messengers to interrupt violence cycles offer proven models adaptable to political contexts. By rebuilding social trust from the ground up, these initiatives foster resilience, making communities immune to division and violent appeals.

The Path Forward

The assassination of Charlie Kirk cannot be undone. But his death can serve as a catalyst for the hard work of democratic renewal. The international experience shows that even societies torn by decades of violence can find pathways to peace—not perfect peace, but sustainable peace that allows democracy to function and citizens to live without fear.

The choice facing America is clear. The country can continue down its current path of escalating polarization, inflammatory rhetoric, and institutional decay, making political violence increasingly likely. Or it can choose the harder path of rebuilding—repairing social bonds, restoring institutional trust, and recommitting to the basic democratic principle that differences are resolved through dialogue, not violence.

The lessons from around the world suggest this choice is still available. But the window for peaceful transformation may not remain open indefinitely.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.