Erica Chenoweth initially thought that only violent protests were effective. However after analyzing 323 movements the results were opposite of what Erica thought:

For the next two years, Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables related to success criteria, participant categories, state capacity, and more. The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change.

If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    The fourth element is especially important now. Don’t engage on the playing field Trump set up on what is plain to see is a setup to authorize martial law powers for himself.

    But it also means don’t let government drive the conversation in media either. Keep standing up and keep the message clear that this is a stand against tyranny and let Trump and his admin flail, grasp at straws and reach for the Project2025 book of excuses. They look weak and unconvincing against the resolve of the peaceful resistance movement.

    Based on the cases you have studied, what are the key elements necessary for a successful nonviolent campaign?

    CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that’s sustained.

    The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide how violent the confrontation with — and reaction to — the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo, and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that’s a decisive factor.

    The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation in the methods they use.

    The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed — which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes — they don’t either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        Look at all the criticism from Lemmings and Redditors when an upper class member is trying to side with the movement by spending their money in print media to get the “No Kings” message out. That appears to be in a step in line with that second point but some that support the cause are in opposition to these actions.