“While protests continue erupting with remarkable frequency, they are also failing, at historic rates, to achieve protesters’ stated goals. As Time hailed the power of the protester, the rate at which mass protests succeeded in meeting their objectives was plummeting, from two in three during the early 2000s to just one in six by the early 2020s. Activists are now reaping less fruit from their labour, while many would-be activists never take the plunge in the first place because they reasonably doubt that their participation will make any difference. Why aren’t protesters winning like they once did, and what would make protests more effective?”

Some scholars pin declining protest success rates on social media, which allows huge crowds to assemble without building the organisational structures and strong networks necessary to effect meaningful change. Others blame dictators’ use of ‘smart repression’ techniques, including censorship, propaganda and misinformation. As the political scientist Kurt Weyland points out, counterrevolutionaries have historically held an advantage over revolutionaries because they are willing to bide their time, heed advisors, and do their research on which repressive methods have worked in the past. Revolutionaries, in contrast, tend to leap into action, sometimes miscalculating their odds of success and choosing misguided strategies.

Violence seldom pays. From 1900 to 2006, nonviolent resistance campaigns were more than twice as effective as violent ones (though even nonviolent campaigns have struggled to achieve their goals in more recent years). One reason why violence backfires is that it discourages new activists from joining or otherwise supporting a movement.

Cohesive demands are more persuasive than mixed demands.

Diverse coalitions signal that a movement is more than a radical fringe. 

Marginalised protesters influence lawmakers more than privileged protesters.

Most protests fail. What are activists doing right when they win? | Psyche Ideas

posted by F.Sheikh