This thesis aims to investigate if state oppression towards independence movements affects their chosen strategies for achieving autonomy, as well as examine whether the state oppression results in political jiu-jitsu and/or backfire for the state. In recent years there have been more studies regarding state oppression towards non-violent movements examining in what ways this affects the non-violent movements, as this has been seen as unjust methods. Furthermore, it has been examined in relation to political jiu-jitsu and backfire, however not specifically regarding independence movements in a qualitative study. The study is based on the theoretical framework political jiu-jitsu by Gene Sharp and the backfire framework by Brian Martin. This has been done with a qualitative comparative case study through a process tracing method with the independence movements UCK and ETA as analytical units.
The result from the study firstly indicates that there is a connection between the experience of state oppression and the prominence of political jiu-jitsu and backfire for states - that states experience political jiu-jitsu and backfire when choosing oppressive methods towards non-violence movements. Second, the independence movements are likely to choose violence as methods to achieve their political goals. These results are of importance to understand how violence can affect non-violent movements and how states using oppression can end up suffering from it - acknowledging it may not be the way to go.