sanctuary

Showing posts with label nonviolent revolutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonviolent revolutions. Show all posts

Sunday, November 03, 2019

How Many People Does it Take to Turn on the Lights


Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation.
(Ernest Renan, 19th century French philosopher)

Above that 3.5% threshold, there hadn't been any failed movements...
(Erica Chenoweth, political scientist)

Only 20 years ago something like 70 percent of protests pushing for major political change were successful. This trend, however, reversed in the mid-2000s and success rates have now dropped to around 30 percent, this according to The Interpreter, published in the NYT, October 25, 2019.

Global mass protests have been growing year after year since World War II but have now reached an unheard-of level? Many people are aware of the unrest roiling countries across our planet, including here in the U.S., but possibly a lot less are aware that protests are now more likely to fail.

The “why” is of course extremely important. Here in America, as well as globally, failure to understand protest objectives and strategies will certainly lead to frustration, unsatisfactory results and increasing cynicism. Too much is at stake for those of us seeking systemic changes. It is important to remember that the anger and the resistance is not going to stop, regardless of what governments might do to control the desire for change, equality and economic justice.

Some of the answers, in part, may come from the work of Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard who studies civil resistance across the globe and has written numerous articles on the subject. She published a book several years ago entitled, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. The Extinction Rebellion movement has credited Chenoweth's ideas for their success.

It is a complicated subject but Chenoweth offers four broad reasons why protests have stalled at the present time. First, more countries are favoring authoritarianism over democracy. Second, social media makes protests easier to start but also makes them more likely to fail as well. Third, social polarization has risen dramatically. Four, authoritarians are getting better at manipulating their citizens.

Nationalism has risen across the globe brought about by economic uncertainty, immigration and fear of losing one's social and cultural place in society. Climate change could exacerbate all of the above. Global corruption has entrenched defective political systems and working “within” the system is perceived to be less likely to bring about positive democratic changes for increasing numbers of people.

Chenoweth points out that dictators in general in recent years have emerged gradually rather than by overnight coups. It becomes a slow, steady drip toward repression. Orban's Hungary may be a good example of this as well as Turkey. Poland appears to be following the pattern, wrapping itself in “national identity” and Catholic conservatism. What happens right here in the U.S. remains to be seen.

Omnipresent social media may be the most interesting factor of all. We all know that large groups can be mobilized rapidly with cell phones and Facebook accounts. But putting large numbers on the street quickly with no underlying structure or deep commitment to a particular cause ultimately leads to very little.

For anyone that remembers the civil rights movement of the 60s or for that matter the anti-war protests, the women's movement or the environmental movement knows that organizing and planning was essential along with building support at the grass roots.

Chenoweth believes social media “really advantages” repression. Governments across the globe have certainly learned how to co-opt media and push their own messages as well as rally sympathizers without, and this is important, sending in the tanks and the usual heavy handedness.

Erica Chenoweth states that nonviolent campaigns are successful 53% of the time compared to 26% for violent protests. Within this framework she refers to the “3.5 Rule,” a tipping point.

What this means is that success is very likely when 3.5% of the entire population is actually participating. In the U.S. this would amount to some 11 million citizens, in a country of more than 320 million people.

Hong Kong, an autonomous region of China, at the present time offers an interesting perspective on protests. The participants remain disciplined and focused on their goals. It started out as a protest by students and academics confronting a law that would allow China to arrest Hong Kong residents and bring them back to the mainland. It began with a particular interest group or class of people but has now spread across all sectors of society as more residents can envision their own self-interest.

Some 2 million residents of Hong Kong, out of a population of more than 7 million people, are protesting and marching daily, with very little violence committed by the participants. This is more than 3.5 percent of the population. Another million non-participating residents are probably sympathetic to the overall goals of the campaign.

Successful protest campaigns require much more than a crowd gathering and waving placards periodically. It means that, while quantity is important, the quality of the commitment and the discipline of the participants is far more significant in sustaining a long term movement. We Americans, among others, ought not to be under any illusion that oppression—gradual or otherwise—that we see across the globe won't happen in the U.S.