Deniz Aksoy

Terrorism In Dictatorships

A key finding in the terrorism literature is that dictatorships experience less terrorism than democracies. However, we have few explanations for why some dictatorships experience substantial threats from terrorism while others do not. A growing body of work on authoritarian politics focuses on political institutions in these regimes to explain a broad range of political outcomes. Building on this literature, we argue that opposition political party activity increases the collective action capacity of regime opponents and that elected legislatures can channel this mobilized capacity into support for the government. However, when active opposition parties operate in the absence of legislatures, political opponents increasingly turn to terrorism. We find evidence that terrorist groups are most likely to emerge in dictatorships with opposition political parties but no elected legislature. These regimes also experience the highest volume of subsequent attacks.

Electoral Institutions and the Emergence of Terrorist Groups

A wide range of studies find that democracies experience more terrorism than non-democracies. However, surprisingly little terrorism research takes into account the variation among democracies in terms of their electoral institutions. Furthermore, despite much discussion of the differences in terrorist groups’ goals in the literature, little quantitative work distinguishes among groups with different goals, and none explores whether and how the influence of electoral institutions varies among groups with different goals. The argument in this article posits that electoral institutions influence the emergence of within-system groups, which seek policy changes, but do not influence the emergence of anti-system groups, which seek a complete overthrow of the existing regime and government. The study finds that within-system groups are significantly less likely to emerge in democracies that have a proportional representation system and higher levels of district magnitude, while neither of these factors affects the emergence of anti-system groups.

Who gets what, when, and how revisited: Voting and proposal powers in the allocation of the EU budget

What are the factors that help EU member states to secure favourable bargaining outcomes? Although existing research highlights the importance of the member states’ ‘political power’, scholars tend to equate this with their voting power. In this paper, I argue that proposal-making power associated with the EU presidency helps the member states to obtain preferable negotiation outcomes. Analysis of the cross-state allocation of the EU budget from 1977—2003 shows that holding the EU presidency during the time of allocation decisions brings financial benefits to individual member states.

Terrorism and the Fate of Dictators

The authors study the influence of domestic political dissent and violence on incumbent dictators and their regimes. They argue that elite with an interest in preserving the regime hold dictators accountable when there is a significant increase in terrorism. To pinpoint the accountability of dictators to elite who are strongly invested in the current regime, the authors make a novel theoretical distinction between reshuffling coups that change the leader but leave the regime intact and regime-change coups that completely change the set of elites atop the regime. Using a new data set that distinguishes between these two coup types, the authors provide robust evidence that terrorism is a consistent predictor of reshuffling coups, whereas forms of dissent that require broader public participation and support, such as protests and insurgencies, are associated with regime-change coup attempts. This article is the first to show that incumbent dictators are held accountable for terrorist campaigns that occur on their watch.

Elections and the Timing of Terrorist Attacks

This article studies the relationship between elections and domestic terrorism in democracies. Do approaching elections lead to an increase in the volume of terrorist activity? Extant theory suggests that terrorist groups strategically plan their attacks around elections. I argue that approaching elections are not always affiliated with an increase in the volume of terrorist activity. Electoral permissiveness, an important feature of democratic electoral systems, influences the extent to which periods close to elections are periods of heightened terrorist activity. Approaching elections lead to an increase in the volume of attacks in democracies with low electoral permissiveness but not in others. I test my argument with data from Western European democracies between 1950 and 2004. Using statistical models that include country fixed effects, I show that approaching elections are affiliated with an increase of the volume of attacks in democracies with the least permissive electoral systems, but not in demo...

“It Takes a Coalition”: Coalition Potential and Legislative Decision Making

This article empirically illustrates the value of coalition formation in legislative bargaining. I argue that legislators’ potential to form powerful coalitions, their coalition potential, is essential to their ability to obtain preferred policy outcomes. Using data on the European Unions legislative process, I show that coalition potential significantly increases legislators’ success. Moreover, the value of coalition potential depends on the voting rules used to pass legislation. For example, under the unanimity voting rule, the importance of coalition potential is insignificant because of the veto power held by each legislator.

Electoral and Partisan Cycles in Counterterrorism

Most empirical work on terrorism examines terrorist groups’ actions, that is, the volume or character of attacks, while relatively little work focuses on states’ counterterrorism actions. I address this gap with a focus on the electoral and partisan motivations of democratic states’ domestic counterterrorism actions. Do electoral concerns give incumbent governments incentives to increase the level of their counterterrorism activities? I show that elections are an important determinant of governments’ actions against domestic terrorism. However, governments’ ideological orientation is essential to understanding the relationship between elections and counterterrorism. Using data from Western European democracies between 1950 and 2004, I show that as elections approach, only Right-oriented governments increase the volume of their counterterrorism activities.