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
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world
- David Robson
- Word count
- 2041 words
I haven’t researched this at all of course but using one of the examples: the protests against Marcos in 86, I kinda got to say that the definition of “non-violent” feels pretty broad. It contained riots, defecting military who voiced support to dissident generals. It had helicopter attacks and missiles etc.
Sure, the core was open protests but without the inherent threat of a coup by the military, the US lifting it’s hand from Marcos, and threat towards the first family it would just have been a protest
(... IT SEEMS, this is random history books + Wikipedia knowledge so read this as it was written: by a person with close to zero knowledge)
I’ve heard it said several times that MLK succeeded thanks partly to the threat of the alternative (Malcolm X).
Are we at 3.5% of the population yet?