It only works when politicians are worried about getting reelected. When fighting dedicators it doesn’t really work that way.
While this article doesn’t say 3.5% showed up… It’s dubious that the claims of there being 3.5% of the population engaged in the No Kings Day protest is correct exactly because some of the numbers offered magically hit that 3.5% mark. People are starting with the conclusion they want and making the numbers match to reach it. There’s a range of estimated participation in No Kings Day, and most estimates are below the 3.5%. It was an amazing turnout that the press largely ignored.
I keep seeing this but the claim is dubious at best and feel like conflating correlation with causation. While the examples cited were largely non violent they had aspects and sub movements advocating violence and destruction, so any outcomes cannot be isolated in a way to make this claim.
She doesn’t claim that you need to hit 3.5% and then you’re magically able to overthrow an authoritarian government.
She notes that disciplined nonviolent resistance, focused around a concise and relatable message, is a characteristic of successful movements. And that turnout number is a common artifact of movement who are focused, strategic, and disciplined. The number in and of itself is not the goal.
If this is what I think it is, it’s also highly selective in what to include. If it wasn’t successful it’s not included, for some reason or another. It’s somewhat useful, but it’s far from being a rule.
Listen to the first half of this podcast as Chenoweth explains what the cavets are to this rule. She describes it more of as a descriptive rule not prescriptive rule, and suggests many other circumstances going on in addition to achieving this rule. Further régimes have adapted to this rule since it was first discovered and she’s still truing to see what that adaptation means.
You Are Not So Smart: 313 - The 3.5 Percent Rule - Erica Chenoweth
Episode webpage: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
Yeah, and being a counter force within the intention of not permitting that to happen by generating division between the protesters for example. Still, the point of the 3,5% rule is not like something written in a stone, just a statical analysis who have that fact and investigation is not finished, and new events may demonstrate something else.
Fascinating idea and I look forward to reading the book. As someone who has never seen protests be that effective as compared to other constituency pressure mechanisms, it’s an interesting counter point.
The OP’s article indicates 3.5% of the population, which for the US at the moment would be around 340 million. 3.5% would be 11.9 million people.
Rough guesses are that the protest saw about 4-6 million people out yesterday.
I’m particularly curious about the paper’s coalition building concepts about tying immigration to other value such as worker rights, private sector interests such as agriculture, racial justice, etc.
Beyond this I wonder if the analysis from ten years ago takes into account the technological isolation, manipulation, and echo chambering of modern politics. I would venture to guess that the 3.5% might need to be higher in a population that doesn’t listen to ‘untrusted opinions’.
Last count I saw from 50501 was about 8.6M. Traditional media is reporting about 5M. 50501 is probably including even small protests as this was done nearly everywhere including less official ones in small towns while trad media is probably only including the fully official larger ones.
Or trad media is doing what it always does, minimizing progressive turnout and exaggerating right-wing numbers.
The authors coined a rule about the level of participation necessary for a movement to succeed, called the “3.5% rule”: nearly every movement with active participation from at least 3.5% of the population succeeded.[8][9] All of the campaigns that achieved that threshold were nonviolent.[10]
So… how long until Trump is gone then?
It’s important to remember that Trump isn’t the problem, he’s a symptom.
The pressure needs to increase until the problem is solved.
He may be a symptom but he is also a focusing lense, think of him like a magnifying glass starting fires. The sun is still a problem and the conditions for fire are still present but at the very least without the magnifying glass actively starting fires it’s a lot easier to deal with.
Yeah what’s the metric for success in protesting a cause so embedded in the roots?
You see the numbers that turned out for No Kings? Get those people to camp out in the streets and give it two weeks.
Obama’s old speechwriting director just interviewed the researcher who uncovered this phenomenon. Pretty fascinating conversation about what successful authoritarian resistance movements have in common.
Must be very interesting. I previously listen she in David McRaney’s podcast YouAreNotSoSmart with not knowing what about that rule and understand that is not like a stone rule, and more an statistical analysis who shows that even minor percentages of people can make it. I’m sure that in the video that you refers, she solves many of the doubts that that such a statement generates.
Great moment to work for it… And it is possible that a minor percentage than that also will be enough, according to the autor of the rule.
Another interesting interview for better understand this investigations is the one done by David McRaney in his podcast You Are Not so Smart. He is a great host and solve many wrong ideas that comes to peoples mind (me included) when you listen the rule for the first time.
You Are Not So Smart: 313 - The 3.5 Percent Rule - Erica Chenoweth
Página del episodio: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
