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.
At the peak, I believe Kyiv alone had 500K protesters (with many regional centres also being major protest hotspots). But we also had armed rebellion closer to the presidential office in Feb 2014.
In Chenoweth’s data set, it was only once the nonviolent protests had achieved that 3.5% threshold of active engagement that success seemed to be guaranteed – and raising even that level of support is no mean feat. In the UK it would amount to 2.3 million people actively engaging in a movement (roughly twice the size of Birmingham, the UK’s second largest city); in the US, it would involve 11 million citizens – more than the total population of New York City.
A quick search suggests US has twice achieved the 3.5% threshold, the record being in 2020 with the George Floyd protests (15M to 25M) and Earth Day in 1970 with 20M protesters (assuming this was the biggest US protest in recent history on a population adjusted level).
Perhaps the difference relative to other countries was that Americans didn’t explicitly protest for removal of the existing regime.
Keep protesting yes, but also escalate either in degree or kind if it doesn’t work. The moment you stall you lose the game, yet for example I’m not hearing of any politically—rather than purely economically—motivated strikes.
I wonder what our Revolution of Dignity would fall under.
At the peak, I believe Kyiv alone had 500K protesters (with many regional centres also being major protest hotspots). But we also had armed rebellion closer to the presidential office in Feb 2014.
A quick search suggests US has twice achieved the 3.5% threshold, the record being in 2020 with the George Floyd protests (15M to 25M) and Earth Day in 1970 with 20M protesters (assuming this was the biggest US protest in recent history on a population adjusted level).
Perhaps the difference relative to other countries was that Americans didn’t explicitly protest for removal of the existing regime.
No, it’s that the 3.5% rule requires that those 3.5% be consistently engaged and willing to escalate, and BLM was not that.
I live in Portland OR so I know that’s not true.
What kind of escalation happened? Afaik the whole thing stalled with spontaneous protests and riots.
Yeah but they weren’t consistently engaged.
Willingness to keep protesting and commitment does seem to be critical as per successful global examples.
Keep protesting yes, but also escalate either in degree or kind if it doesn’t work. The moment you stall you lose the game, yet for example I’m not hearing of any politically—rather than purely economically—motivated strikes.