Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.
Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.
Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field. They primarily considered attempts to bring about regime change. A movement was considered a success if it fully achieved its goals both within a year of its peak engagement and as a direct result of its activities. A regime change resulting from foreign military intervention would not be considered a success, for instance. A campaign was considered violent, meanwhile, if it involved bombings, kidnappings, the destruction of infrastructure – or any other physical harm to people or property.
While in 2019, the presidents of Sudan and Algeria both announced they would step aside after decades in office, thanks to peaceful campaigns of resistance.
JFC. Sudan? This propaganda did not age well. Algeria is not much better. I’ll stop here.
I think the thing that is most important from the study, is that getting 3.5% of the population works every time and you can ignore the rest. That works with what you just posted. In my opinion, he’s focusing on the wrong thing.
One of the key things is that if 3-5% working adults start protesting and a general strike, you don’t need violence. Because that would cause most countries to stop functioning.
It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it will impact enough different jobs that at least one link in almost every supply and service chain will break. It wont immedately stop, but give it some time and “everything” will be impacted.
Excellent point. This threshold for action is also affected by the related societal events.
Willfully fracturing the global market, dismantling the largest employer in the country, and violently exiling the ever-exploited backbone of the economy will force those potential disruptions and dysfunctions to the surface much faster than it would have otherwise.
We are about to see a lot of goods and services and fundamental aspects of society that we take for granted suddenly become unreliable, unsustainable, unaffordable, or literally just unavailable.
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
Source in article from 2019
“Nonviolent protests” are a myth. That article has been debunked.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-05-mn-4360-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
JFC. Sudan? This propaganda did not age well. Algeria is not much better. I’ll stop here.
This is an opinion by an anarchist.
I think the thing that is most important from the study, is that getting 3.5% of the population works every time and you can ignore the rest. That works with what you just posted. In my opinion, he’s focusing on the wrong thing.
One of the key things is that if 3-5% working adults start protesting and a general strike, you don’t need violence. Because that would cause most countries to stop functioning.
It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it will impact enough different jobs that at least one link in almost every supply and service chain will break. It wont immedately stop, but give it some time and “everything” will be impacted.
Excellent point. This threshold for action is also affected by the related societal events.
Willfully fracturing the global market, dismantling the largest employer in the country, and violently exiling the ever-exploited backbone of the economy will force those potential disruptions and dysfunctions to the surface much faster than it would have otherwise.
We are about to see a lot of goods and services and fundamental aspects of society that we take for granted suddenly become unreliable, unsustainable, unaffordable, or literally just unavailable.
We had around half of the 3.5% (6 million+) at the Hands Off protest. If it had more coverage, it probably could have been 75% of that.