The forthcoming article “Contesting repression in divided democracies: Can counternarratives reduce support for police violence?” by Yanilda María González and Natán Skigin is summarized by the author(s) below.
In recent years, massive protests against police violence have erupted worldwide. George Floyd’s murder sparked unprecedented demonstrations across American cities. In Nigeria, the #EndSARS movement mobilized millions against police brutality. From Chile to Hong Kong, citizens demanded accountability for state repression. These uprisings revealed widespread citizen discontent—yet also exposed deep polarization and competing narratives over whether such violence is justified.
Despite these protests, police killings persist at alarming rates in many democracies, often with substantial public support. In deeply polarized societies, can anything change minds on such divisive and consequential issues?
Our Findings: Brazil as a Critical Case
Our paper examines this puzzle in Brazil, which experiences police killings at over five times the U.S. rate. Police violence enjoys considerable public support, prominent politicians explicitly promote extrajudicial killings and, as our survey reveals, stark polarization persists between left and right-wing voters.
Through a nationwide survey experiment, we tested whether counternarratives from victims’ mothers—prominent figures in Brazilian anti-violence movements—can reduce support for extrajudicial killings. We demonstrate that, while police narratives criminalizing victims increase endorsement of violence, mothers’ statements can override these effects, particularly when emphasizing their sons’ innocence or disadvantages tied to race and class.
The mechanism matters: mothers’ narratives increase empathy and reduce victim-blaming. Crucially, we observed the largest effects among right-wing voters and others who typically support police killings.
However, not all narratives succeed. When mothers acknowledged their sons’ criminality while demanding due process, victim-blaming and perceptions that police killings improve security increased, and empathy with victims decreased. These findings reveal citizens’ reluctance to uphold rights for criminalized populations.
Implications for Democratic Reform
Our findings offer key insights for democracies grappling with police violence. First, marginalized victims can shape public attitudes across ideological lines, strengthening politicians’ incentives to enact reforms.
Second, victims are most effective when highlighting innocence and disadvantage, but their advocacy can backfire when acknowledging criminality—suggesting strategic considerations for movements in “tough on crime” environments.
Finally, perspective-getting can reduce support for state violence, but framing is critical. As populist politicians increasingly curtail rights for criminalized groups, understanding when victims’ voices succeed or fail becomes essential for democratic accountability.
The global protests of recent years revealed widespread demand for police reform. More recently, ICE’s fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good during an anti-immigration raid in Minneapolis reignited debates about state violence in democracies, prompting competing narratives. Our findings suggest that voices from directly affected communities can help translate that demand into sustained attitude change—even in the most polarized democracies.
About the Author(s): Yanilda María González is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and Natán Skigin is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Politics in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Their research “Contesting repression in divided democracies: Can counternarratives reduce support for police violence?” is now available in Early View and will appear in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Political Science.