It is now widely accepted that the age of decolonization was also a turning point in the history of democracy, as the vast majority of the non-European world replaced imperial rule with democratic republics. Although this fact is taken for granted, scholarly attention so far has been focused on the nationalist aspiration of anticolonial movements and their contesting visions of self-determination. In the moment of its global conquest, democracy, it may seem, was an afterthought—or, at best, a logical corollary—for anticolonial thinkers preoccupied with overcoming empire.

Focusing on colonial India and departing from the standard narratives of anticolonialism, Nazmul Sultan argues that democracy was neither a given ideal waiting to be claimed nor reducible to the concerns of territorial sovereignty. Nazmul suggests that the problem of peoplehood sat at the heart of the monumental clash between the British Empire and the Indian anticolonial movement, inspiring in the process a rethinking of the meaning of democracy for the colonial world. He will also reflect on the place of the anticolonial moment in the global history of democratic thought.

Please join us for this virtual conversation. Register here.

About the Speaker

Nazmul S. Sultan is an Assistant Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. He is the author of Waiting for the People: The Idea of Democracy in Indian Anticolonial Thought (forthcoming with the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press). His research has also appeared in the American Political Science Review, Political Theory, and Review of Politics, among others.

Presented by the Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies. Co-sponsored by the South Asia Program, and the Gender and Security Sector Lab.

Amandla!: A Revolution in Four-Part Harmony is a 2002 documentary film depicting the struggles of black South Africans against the injustices of Apartheid through the use of music.

Why do people engage in vigilantism? Vigilantism is commonly understood as a functional solution to a security problem, or as "popular justice," an expression of the people's will. However, both these approaches overlook the power dynamics that are at the heart of vigilantism—and as a result, they are unable to fully explain when, how, and why vigilantism occurs.

Regina Bateson will discuss the logic and processes of vigilantism as a form of contentious political behavior. Indeed, a contentious politics framework helps to resolve several puzzles of vigilantism: Why do vigilantes intentionally seek engagement with the state? Why are vigilante punishments excessively violent? Why is vigilantism sometimes unrelated to public opinion, crime rates, and state presence? And why does vigilantism happen even in societies with strong rule of law? These apparent contradictions all make sense if we view vigilantism as a way of seeking influence, reinforcing hierarchies, and making claims. After all, vigilantism is not just about security or justice; it is also about power.

About the Speaker

Regina Bateson is a comparative political scientist who studies violence, politics, the rule of law, and threats to democracy. Regina is currently an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. Her academic work is informed by her prior experiences as a Foreign Service Officer for the US Department of State, a Spanish-English legal interpreter, and a congressional candidate.

Presented by the Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies. Co-sponsored by the Gender and Security Sector Lab.

The United States stands at a crossroads in international security. The backbone of its international position for the last 70 years has been the massive network of overseas military deployments. However, the U.S. now faces pressures to limit its overseas presence and spending.

Carla Martinez Machain argues that the U.S. has entered into a "domain of competitive consent," where the longevity of overseas deployments relies on the buy-in from host-state populations and what other major powers offer in security guarantees.

Drawing from three years of surveys and interviews across fourteen countries, her current project demonstrates that a key component of building support for the U.S. mission is the service members themselves as they interact with local community members. Highlighting both the positive contact and economic benefits that flow from military deployments and the negative interactions like crime and anti-base protests, her work shows how U.S. policy on the ground shapes its ability to advance its foreign policy goals.

About the Speaker

Carla Martínez Machain is a professor of political science at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Her research (funded by the Department of Defense’s Minerva Initiative and the Army Research Office, among others) focuses on foreign policy analysis, with a focus on military policy and international conflict.

Presented by the Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies. Co-sponsored by the American Studies Program and the Gender and Security Sector Lab.

States often fortify their borders against militant threats. How do these efforts shape civilian welfare and perceptions in borderland communities? Professor Christopher Blair conceptualizes border fortification as a legibility-building endeavor. By bolstering state reach in areas of weak historical penetration, fortification enhances the government's capacity for monitoring, administration, and control. Yet, expanding state authority also disrupts traditional cross-border markets. A trade-off between security and corruption emerges in consequence. He provides evidence for this theory in a difference-in-differences framework, combining administrative records on violence and representative data from a NATO-commissioned survey fielded across Afghanistan. Fortification facilitates government information-collection, improving security provision and fostering national identification. Enhanced state capacity is countervailed by negative economic impacts. By disturbing the informal borderland economy, fortification fuels criminalization and local opposition. Civilians rely on illicit economic entrepreneurs to sustain traditional market access. Higher smuggling rents fuel official corruption and bribe-taking. The findings point to a key dilemma inherent in border fortification strategies.

About the Speaker

Christopher Blair is an incoming Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics at Princeton University. His work spans across international relations and comparative politics, with a substantive focus on the political economy of conflict and migration. The main questions motivating his research are: (1) how counterinsurgency policies impact rebel and civilian behavior; and (2) how prospective hosts respond to forcibly displaced people.

Presented by the Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies. Co-sponsored by the South Asia Program, and the Gender and Security Sector Lab.

In many accounts of the Vietnam War, the 1968 Tet Offensive – a sweeping series of communist attacks against military bases, provincial capitals and even the United States Embassy in Saigon – is recalled as a defining moment when American public opinion turned against the war. Long overlooked, however, is the equally significant political impact of Tet in South Vietnam itself.

Far from evincing public sympathy as Communist strategists had intended, the attacks saw a wave of anti-Communist solidarity sweep through South Vietnam’s cities and provincial towns. Partisan rivals set aside their differences, while the South Vietnamese military seized the opportunity to expand into Communist-dominated rural areas.

The post-Tet period arguably marked the zenith of anti-Communist cohesion in Vietnam. For a time, it appeared plausible that the balance might be tipping in Saigon’s favour. But the military government squandered this uniquely poised opportunity by monopolizing political power at the expense of civilian parties and institutions. This betrayed the constitutional order on which the state’s legitimacy was based, deflating post-Tet resolve, accelerating American funding cuts, and precipitating the state’s abrupt collapse from within in 1975.

Drawing on American and Vietnamese-language sources, Sean Fear explores the aftermath of the 1968 Tet Offensive in South Vietnam. Challenging conventional views of the Vietnam War as a clash between Cold War superpowers and their proxies, it also asserts the centrality of overlooked Vietnamese political actors in determining the outcome of the war.

Please join us for this virtual conversation. Register here.

About the Speaker

Sean Fear is a lecturer in international history at the University of Leeds. His research focuses on South Vietnamese domestic politics and diplomacy during the Second Republic (1967-1975). He is a 2022-23 Visiting Professor of History and Vietnam Studies at Fulbright University in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Presented by the Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies. Co-sponsored by the Southeast Asia Program and the Gender and Security Sector Lab.