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.
Yes, they leave out that the protests work because they are displays of very large amounts of people who, while peaceful now, they have reason to believe can become violent. Without being backed by the threat of violence, or see as a diplomatic out to a movement that is, otherwise, violent, they don’t really work.
I have read a number of things, over the years, discussing essentially this. They were always recalling historical movements to make their case, not so data driven. Thank you for the paper.
correct, and in those cases they saw that there was an important group within the movement they could have a diplomatic out with, and they decided to take it before it was all violence
Data presented to you by BBC the same network that lied to you about WMS in Iraq, genocide of the Palestinians people, and most likely more.
Yes, they leave out that the protests work because they are displays of very large amounts of people who, while peaceful now, they have reason to believe can become violent. Without being backed by the threat of violence, or see as a diplomatic out to a movement that is, otherwise, violent, they don’t really work.
The radical flank effect:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false
I have read a number of things, over the years, discussing essentially this. They were always recalling historical movements to make their case, not so data driven. Thank you for the paper.
Also all their examples of non-violent successes had violent factions demonstrating the alternative.
correct, and in those cases they saw that there was an important group within the movement they could have a diplomatic out with, and they decided to take it before it was all violence