Rebel Tactics, Local Public Support, and the Upcoming Phase of Peace Talks in Southern ThailandMargherita Belgioioso, University of KentResearch Grant, 2021 Understanding the local legitimacy of rebel groups in contested areas can be challenging because it is generally not directly observable. The existing literature assumed that rebel legitimacy depended on the use of violent or nonviolent tactics. However, there had been limited empirical work directly testing this idea. This research project aimed to fill the gap by examining how public support varied based on the tactics employed by rebels. This knowledge could be instrumental in shaping stable peace talks and negotiations, as rebels with broader support tend to have more stable peace agreements. The project had two primary objectives: (1) to provide negotiators with systematic evidence for evaluating the legitimacy levels of various rebel groups involved in a civil war, and (2) to advance the growing experimental knowledge regarding the impact of rebel tactical choices on public opinions. The research involved conducting two survey experiments in conflict-affected provinces of Thailand in collaboration with a local survey provider, Deep South Watch. These experiments aimed to map local public opinion response to specific rebel tactics by presenting survey respondents with randomized information about these tactics and then measuring the extent of support they expressed for the rebels and their leaders. This research addressed a global issue by examining how local support for rebel groups in civil wars varies based on the rebels’ behavior, specifically their tactical choices. The study then tested the hypothesis that nonviolent tactics enhanced the local legitimacy of rebel groups by examining four specific nonviolent tactics. It also assessed whether the use of violent tactics against soft targets reduced local public support, as suggested by several rationalist studies. Additionally, it explored the effect of internal “democratic” processes, arguing that rebels’ use of elections to designate leaders increased the local legitimacy of their group. This research addressed a global issue by examining how local support for rebel groups in civil wars varies based on the rebels’ behavior, specifically their tactical choices. The project hypothesized that only tactics that demonstrated the rebels’ ability to impose sufficient costs on the opponent to induce a change in behavior would influence local attitudes toward rebel groups, making them more prominent actors in the conflict. The direction of this change in attitudes depended on the audience’s perception of the morality of each tactic. Nonviolent actions were universally seen as moral, as they signalled respect for human life and offered the potential for peaceful conflict resolution. The study rigorously tested these expectations through analysis of the data obtained from the two survey experiments conducted in conflict-affected areas of southern Thailand. The findings suggested that large-scale nonviolent protests led to a more favorable overall public opinion of rebel groups. However, self-immolations and terrorism against civilians generated both more favorable and more unfavorable opinions, highlighting their polarizing effect. Finally, the study indicated that terrorist attacks on infrastructure had made local public opinion of dissidents less unfavorable but had not made it more favorable.
