According to the often-cited 3.5% rule, if 3.5% of a population protests against a regime, the regime will fail. Developed by political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, who researched civil resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006, the rule has seen renewed interest in leftist circles recently, especially with No Kings protests attracting historic numbers.
…
This shows the outsize impact a single protester can have, the study’s authors say. That’s because having one more attender at a demonstration rallies more support for a political cause than acquiring one more vote during an election does.
…
In the context of civil rights, the movement’s ability to elicit violence from its opponents – such as in 1965, when armed police violently attacked peaceful protesters crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama – only strengthened public support for the cause. “When the state is perceived as engaging in excess use of force, that tends to generate very sympathetic coverage, and that drives concern,” explained Wasow.
Because it can lead to more militant (and more effective) action? Especially under dictatorships maintaining tight control over public discourse is an issue of life and death. However, as a completely separate issue, if the protests don’t lead to more effective action they’re just hot air.
Well that is certainly part of it. But I think that’s just a piece of the whole. Protest, and more importantly long-term consistent protest, is the most effective means of change. Not for the protest in and of themselves but for the effect they have on society around them. They can as you mentioned Inspire more militant action, which sometimes is helpful in spreading the goals of the protest, but not always. More than that they can change National consciousness. Which is something we forget. Something in our current instant gratification age we don’t seem to remember.
Most change is done at extremely slow pace. Years and even decades. I’m reminded of English abolition, the destruction of the English slave trade which destroyed chattel slavery in most of the western world. That took decades. Decades of consistent action. Of small victories. Of constant pressure. Slowly changing the awareness and minds of the entire Empire.
I’m reminded of civil rights in America, which most of us don’t seem to remember very well. Cuz they think it started with Martin Luther King, as if he was source of it. When in reality he was chosen to be the face of civil rights movement by people who had been working for years and years. And without those people we don’t have Martin Luther King and we don’t have Malcolm X either. We don’t get to that point until National Consciousness begins to change. Until awareness, yes awareness, changes.
Which is the real reason why governments want to choke them out. One protest doesn’t upset a government. Continued protest upsets the government. Entrenched power would love it if you have one protest and then lose heart immediately. The second protest seems likely to continue is when they start cracking down heavily.
Sure, but what if awareness already exists? Basically any progressive platform is supported by the vast majority of Americans and has been for years if not decades, yet invariably nothing happens, or minor victories are made which are almost immediately overturned when conservatives take power. About Trump specifically, there’s no shortage of opposition to Trump and GOP fascism, and frankly anybody who is going to oppose him already is unless things get much, much worse economically. If protests are meant to raise awareness, then they’ve already fulfilled their purpose a long time ago.