KARACHI:

The image of a bloodied Donald Trump, his fist raised in defiance against the backdrop of the American flag, will be indelibly etched in the minds of his supporters and millions of others around the world. The Republican presidential candidate narrowly escaped an attack that could have profoundly changed the course of the country and deepened political divisions.

While political violence remains unpredictable, experts say it has become increasingly common in recent decades, extending far beyond the United States. Just two months ago, world leaders condemned an attack on Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, who was left in a “life-threatening condition” after being shot multiple times in the town of Handlova. A month later, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was attacked in a Copenhagen square. Though Frederiksen suffered mild whiplash, she was otherwise unharmed.

This rise in political violence is not limited to Europe or any particular region. About two years ago, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was gunned down while giving a speech at a political event outside Yamato-Saidaiji Station in the city of Nara. Shortly after, former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was gunned down when his convoy came under fire at a rally. The 70-year-old cricketer-turned-politician was wounded in the lower leg but survived.

In the US, the attack on Trump is seen as one of the worst assassination attempts on a president or presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was gunned down in 1981. American politics is no stranger to such incidents and has a history of such violence. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, and his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, was murdered in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in 1968. In recent years, the US has been rocked by attacks on public figures, including the shootings of Reps. Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise. In 2018, mail bombs were sent to media outlets and prominent Democrats. A plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who is a candidate to replace Biden, was foiled in 2020, and in 2022, a gunman was arrested outside the home of Chief Justice Brett Kavanaugh. That same year, a gavel attack targeted the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

According to criminologists at the University of Maryland, who have tracked political violence from 1970 to 2020, incidents in the U.S. began to rise significantly in 2016, coinciding with Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign. Much of this increase has been attributed to Trump’s own divisive rhetoric.

Martial analogies have been a feature of political discourse for years, experts say. But Trump in particular has been a prominent figure in this trend. The former president recently warned of a “bloodbath” if he lost and suggested that retired general Mark Milley deserved execution. The ringleader has also accused Republican critic Liz Cheney of “treason” and called for her to face a military trial. He has also called his enemies “vermin” and claimed that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” Experts believe that Donald Trump, now the leading Republican candidate, has used social media to a disturbing extent to amplify his contempt for opponents.

“In terms of civil discourse, threats of violence will suppress it, leaving only the very vocal minority to be heard, which gives that minority disproportionate power,” said Dr. Melissa Beattie, an affiliate of Southern New Hampshire University. Her research, focused on national identity and audience studies, finds that divisive rhetoric has become increasingly common in mainstream politics, particularly among right-wing figures like Trump. Democratic leaders, by contrast, often strive to build consensus and avoid populist rhetoric.

Beattie believes that social media platforms play a crucial role in exacerbating these divisions. Commenting on the Republican Party’s strategy, she said, “The GOP has mastered the art of spreading misinformation and leveraging elite funding to saturate the media and quickly shape the news discourse, making real-time fact-checking increasingly difficult.”

“They exploit emotions, particularly fear and anger, and direct them at minorities whom the GOP blames for societal ills. They offer simplistic solutions to complex, systemic problems,” she added.

According to Beattie, Republicans are finding support for their rhetoric in areas with underfunded educational systems, where residents lack critical thinking and media literacy. “To be clear, these individuals are not lacking in intelligence; they are being deprived of the education they need and deserve, a situation that continues in many states,” Beattie explained.

Many GOP supporters, Beattie said, have been mistreated by elites and understandably harbor considerable anger. “The broader normalization of violence driven by racist, misogynist, or other extremist agendas reflects a troubling trend in both political and societal contexts,” she added.

In a recent survey, Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago who has conducted extensive research on political violence, including the January 6 Capitol riot, found that there is significant mainstream support for political violence. “We found that almost 5 to 10 percent of American adults support political violence to make Donald Trump president again,” Pape told CBS News. “Currently, 10 percent of American adults support using violence to prevent Trump from becoming president,” he added.

According to Beattie, social media platforms reflect and amplify existing cultural and subcultural dynamics. “In the case of the GOP, they have used social media to spread misinformation, supported by extensive advertising campaigns that often deploy violent rhetoric,” she added. “This includes symbolic violence, such as dehumanizing people who are non-white, non-heterosexual, or non-cisgender.”

Social media monetization strategies exacerbate the problem, Beattie noted. “Platforms are capitalizing on user engagement, with content that incites anger or fear, which gets more attention,” she added.

“This model, similar to clickbait, aims to provoke strong emotional responses to increase financial gain. Such content can manipulate public perception and portray certain groups as threats. When this narrative is reinforced by socio-cultural contexts that normalize or promote violence, such as the framing of political disputes as a ‘war’ requiring self-defense, and combined with inadequate education and media literacy, it can lead to increased politically or ideologically motivated violence,” Beattie explained.

The academic stressed that political violence is not just a psychological problem, but a systemic, socio-cultural problem that affects societies across the world.