​Political repression refers to systematic repressive actions directed against individuals or groups based on their current or potential involvement in non-institutional efforts for social, cultural, or political change (Peterson & Wahlström, 2015). While researchers broadly agree on this definition, there is some debate regarding its finer meaning. While most scholars restrict political repression to state and institutional actions, others argue that non-state actors, such as corporations, community actors, and criminal organizations should also be considered as perpetrators (Meier et al., 2025). At its core, political repression serves to maintain control and defend established patterns of power and authority. It is inherently characteristic to authoritarian regimes, as autocrats rely on such measures to sustain their rule and prevent popular rebellion (Frantz & Kendall-Taylor, 2014; Tanneberg, 2020). However, political repression and the management of dissent also occurs systematically in democratic and hybrid regimes, as researchers have pointed out over the years (Davenport, 2007; Regan & Henderson, 2002). Moreover, with the rise of technological innovation, the possibilities for surveillance and repression of populations and individuals have significantly increased (Feldstein, 2021).

 

Types of Political Repression​

Political repression is often broadly categorized into two forms (e.g., Boykoff, 2007; Earl, 2011):

​​

1. Hard (overt or loud) Repression: This includes visible and often violent actions such as torture, imprisonment, and mass killings.

2. Soft (covert or quiet) Repression: These measures are more subtle and include actions like surveillance, restrictions on freedom of speech, and efforts to undermine individuals’ professional or personal lives. Quiet repression avoids public scrutiny while depriving political opponents of critical resources such as time, money, security, or allies.

​

However, this categorization is only one of several suggested categorizations in the literature, which note that hard and soft tactics are often combined (see e.g., Earl & Braithwaite, 2022; Yuen & Cheng, 2017).

 

Research Approaches​

Political repression has been studied extensively, however so far mostly in political science, history and sociology. Most research examines political repression as a dependent variable, focusing on why and when states employ repressive measures. Other research focuses on political repression as an independent variable, exploring its effect on the macro-level (e.g., on political environment and/or large social collectivities), the meso-level (e.g., on social movements and activist communities) or the micro-level (e.g., on the individual). Research on the micro-level remains limited, particularly from a psychological perspective (Young, 2019). While emerging studies are beginning to explore how political repression impacts individuals' mental health, stress physiology, and social networks, this remains an underdeveloped field.

 

Measurement of Political Repression​

Measuring political repression is inherently challenging due to its heterogeneity and the clandestine nature of many repressive acts, especially in authoritarian regimes where official records tend to be not open to public scrutiny or where access may be restrictive.

 

Country-level Measures​

Political science offers tools such as the Human Rights Protection Scores (HRPS) 2.04 (Fariss, 2014; Schnakenberg & Fariss, 2014) and the V-Dem Political Civil Liberties Index (Version 6.2; Coppedge et al., 2015) or newer measures based on diversity of repressive events (Bagozzi et al., 2021). These indexes assess violence and restrictions on civil liberties within countries. While valuable for cross-country or cross-time comparisons, these measures have inherent biases and limitations (see, Tanneberg, 2020). Furthermore, they do not target individual level experience, which is needed for micro-level analysis.

 

Individual-level Measures​

To our knowledge, there are no standardized questionnaires specifically designed to measure political repression experience at the individual level to date.

​

A possibility to measure loud repression is to make use of existing trauma questionnaires, such as the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (cross-reference). These instruments often include relevant event-based categories (e.g., imprisonment or physical violence), and could be adapted to a respective state/region perpetrator.

​

It is much more difficult to use event-based questionnaires for capturing the nuanced and heterogeneous experiences of quiet repression. To address this, researchers have used qualitative interviews and anthropological observations to better understand individuals’ experiences and their psychological impact (Fu & Simmons, 2021; Marheinecke et al., 2024; Peña et al., 2023). Utilizing content analysis, factors such as the duration of repression, the number of life domains affected, the age at onset, and contextual factors surrounding the experience can be extracted. Additionally, advances in Artificial Intelligence methods such as natural language modeling offer opportunities to extract even more information more efficiently from qualitative data. Interviews therefore provide rich, detailed data but are time- and resource-intensive, making it challenging to apply broadly. As always with subjective report, distinguishing between subjective perceptions and objective realities poses a significant challenge. Corroborating self-reports with historical or political records can strengthen validity.

​

Measurement of the Effects of Political Repression

​Loud repression often meets the DSM-5 criteria for trauma, which includes exposure to death, threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Consequently, established trauma-related symptom assessment tools are particularly useful for studying its effects (see for example: Traumatic Life Events | UCSF SMN)

In contrast, quiet repression typically does not fulfill the DSM-5 definition of a traumatic event. However, it creates chronic feelings of uncontrollability, social threat, and uncertainty—core elements known to drive harmful psychosocial stress (Dickerson et al., 2004). This makes existing stress measurement tools highly applicable for evaluating the effects of quiet repression (see for example: Salivary Cortisol | UCSF SMN; Inflammation | UCSF SMN; Telomeres and Telomerase | UCSF SMN)

​

To ensure accurate and ethical data collection, these methods should be adapted to the specific requirements of the population under study. This may involve rephrasing questions for cultural specificity, trauma-sensitive administration of the stress induction tests like the Trier Social Stress Test, or other tailored approaches (see Marheinecke et al., 2024). Combining subjective measures with physiological and immunological biomarkers can provide a comprehensive understanding of how political repression impacts both psychological and physical health.

 

Challenges and Limitations of Measuring Political Repression​

As outlined above, measuring political repression—particularly quiet repression—presents significant challenges. Quiet repression is inherently heterogeneous, making it difficult to establish clear criteria or identify the affected target population in a straightforward manner. Its covert nature means that targets often remain unaware of the repression, leaving them unsure of which experiences are state-perpetrated and which might be imagined or coincidental. These challenges manifest differently when examining current or historical repression, both of which present unique obstacles:

​

•  Current Political Repression

Accessing individuals currently experiencing repression is often difficult due to restrictive conditions. Even when reachable, fear of retaliation may discourage participation or elicit cautious answers. However, some researchers have successfully engaged with affected populations in crisis regions (e.g. Mexico, Feinstein, 2013; Afghanistan, Panter-Brick et al., 2008) or in authoritarian environments (China; Deng & O'Brien, 2013)

 

• Historical Repression

Examining repression in historical contexts, such as the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), can be more feasible but requires careful consideration of the cultural and temporal context. For example, unemployment in the GDR, often a result of quiet repression, was criminalized as “asocial behavior”, creating identity threats specific to that time and place, and likely underrated in current times. Further, studying past events can be complicated by memory biases, difficulties in reaching participants, or reluctance to revisit traumatic experiences (see Marheinecke et al., 2024). Researchers can use tools like interviews or archival information to interpret historic repression within its original framework.

​

Finally, researchers must address potential sample biases: Who participates in studies of political repression? Are they the most affected, the least affected, or simply the most willing to share their experiences?

​

Future Research​

Future research could profit from developing specific questionnaires to capture individual experience of political repression. Expanding studies to include more populations across different regimes and cultures would help identify common experiences, mechanisms and consequences. Additionally, identifying possible protective factors could provide a basis for considering support and interventions.

​

​

Author(s) and Reviewer(s): Prepared by Ruth Marheinecke, M.Sc. and Veronika Engert, PhD. Reviewed by Alejandro Milcíades Peña, PhD. If you have questions or comments about this entry, please email Ruth.Marheinecke@med.uni-jena.de.

 

Version date: March 2025

References

​

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Trauma and Stressor Related Disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5 ed.). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

​

Bagozzi, B. E., Berliner, D., & Welch, R. M. (2021). The diversity of repression: Measuring state repressive repertoires with events data. Journal of Peace Research, 58(5), 1126-1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320983424

​

Boykoff, J. (2007). Limiting Dissent: The Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 281-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830701666988

​

Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., Skaaning, S.-E., & Teorell, J. (2015). Measuring high level democratic principles using the V-Dem data. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 580-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115622046

​

Davenport, C. (2007). State Repression and Political Order. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(Volume 10, 2007), 1-23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.101405.143216

​

Deng, Y., & O'Brien, K. J. (2013). Relational Repression in China: Using Social Ties to Demobilize Protesters. The China Quarterly(215), 533-552. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23510801

​

Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the Social Self Is Threatened: Shame, Physiology, and Health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1191-1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.x

​

Earl, J. (2011). Political Repression: Iron Fists, Velvet Gloves, and Diffuse Control. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(Volume 37, 2011), 261-284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102609

 

Earl, J., & Braithwaite, J. M. (2022). Layers of Political Repression: Integrating Research on Social Movement Repression. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 18(Volume 18, 2022), 227-248. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-092713

​

Fariss, C. J. (2014). Respect for Human Rights has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability. The American Political Science Review, 108(2), 297-318. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43654374

​

Feinstein, A. (2013). Mexican journalists and journalists covering war: a comparison of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research, 5(2), 77-85.

​

Feldstein, S. (2021). The Rise of Digital Repression: How Technology is Reshaping Power, Politics, and Resistance. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190057497.001.0001

​

Frantz, E., & Kendall-Taylor, A. (2014). A dictator’s toolkit: Understanding how co-optation affects repression in autocracies. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 332-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313519808

​

Fu, D., & Simmons, E. S. (2021). Ethnographic Approaches to Contentious Politics: The What, How, and Why. Comparative Political Studies, 54(10), 1695-1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211025544

​

Marheinecke, R., Winter, A. C., Strauss, B., & Engert, V. (2024). Specific challenges of researching stress in the context of quiet political repression. Compr Psychoneuroendocrinol, 19, 100248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2024.100248

​

Meier, L., Peña, A. M., & Nah, A. M. (2025). From Collusion to Autonomy: Patterns of Hybrid Repression and Human Rights Activism. Government and Opposition, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2024.32

​

Panter-Brick, C., Eggerman, M., Mojadidi, A., & McDade, T. W. (2008). Social stressors, mental health, and physiological stress in an urban elite of young Afghans in Kabul. American Journal of Human Biology, 20(6), 627-641. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20797

​

Peña, A. M., Meier, L., & Nah, A. M. (2023). Exhaustion, Adversity, and Repression: Emotional Attrition in High-Risk Activism. Perspectives on Politics, 21(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721003273

​

Peterson, A., & Wahlström, M. (2015). Repression: The governance of domestic dissent. In (pp. 634-652). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.2

​

Regan, P. M., & Henderson, E. A. (2002). Democracy, threats and political repression in developing countries: Are democracies internally less violent? Third World Quarterly, 23(1), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590220108207

​

Schnakenberg, K. E., & Fariss, C. J. (2014). Dynamic Patterns of Human Rights Practices. Political Science Research and Methods, 2(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2013.15

​

Tanneberg, D. (2020). How to Measure Dictatorship, Dissent, and Political Repression. In D. Tanneberg (Ed.), The Politics of Repression Under Authoritarian Rule: How Steadfast is the Iron Throne? (pp. 43-75). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35477-0_3

​

Young, L. E. (2019). The Psychology of State Repression: Fear and Dissent Decisions in Zimbabwe. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 140-155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541800076X

​

Yuen, S., & Cheng, E. W. (2017). Neither Repression Nor Concession? A Regime’s Attrition against Mass Protests. Political Studies, 65(3), 611-630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716674024

​

​