The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world
www.bbc.com
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world
Published 14 May 2019
37 comments
-
-
I keep telling people this. To add, armed conflicts have a nasty habit of hardening a country. Getting rights back after it's over is a pain, even if the "good guys" win. If you can manage change by overwhelming numbers in the street then it's far better.
-
These percentages are BS without context.
- 50% of the population could go out for a single day protest. Nothing changes
- 10% of the population could do daily protests. Nothing changes.
- 3% of the population could shut down the country, all hell breaks loose. maybe change maybe not.
- 1% of the population declares war. Remembered for a thousand years.
And even the larger peaceful protests can really change things if they have concrete and achievable political goals.
It’s not the size, it’s how you use it
-
It’s not the size, it’s how you use it
😏
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
-
So is Trunp and his whole admin gonna step down now?
37 comments
Yeah the researcher who came up with this so-called rule has said that it should not be used this way.
It’s a statistical association in the data, not a law of physics.
You need 3.5% to be consistently, effectively engaged to cause change. That was the issue with BLM; there was no organized movement with concrete demands and a base willing to escalate. A more effective version of BLM would've called a general strike.
You can't just call a general strike like it's an I Win power in a video game.
How is BLM going to feed and pay rent for millions of strikers in this general strike? A general strike is a massive, resource intensive feat of logistics with many possible fail points that takes a long time planning to have any hope of success.
Especially since we've not had a general strike in over a generation, there's a good chance it would fail and sour the prospects of doing a general strike in the future.
Also, BLM was a diffuse multi-regional movement with local goals and concrete demands. Defund police departments and end qualified immunity were consistent national goals.
Defund the police was not my favorite. Now I have MAGA criminal running rampant and the police are infact defunded.
Get rid of trump is an easy message we can all agree on. With obvious political answers like we will remove members of congress by an means necessary.
It has to be used the right way too. If you just hold a sign and go home then nothing changes. That's the consensus building and demands phase. When you have critical mass and demands aren't met you burn down police stations and setup autonomous zones. The problem with both of those wasn't that they happened it was that the people fell for the media's demonization of them.
There's stopping Trump and then there's stopping fascism. We can probably do the first one with a consistent 3-5% of support. Stopping fascism will take much more because it requires reworking our government and economy in ways that the right, at least, will vehemently oppose. Trump's biggest blunder is doing too much too soon. His base wants fascism, they just wished it would be less painful than it is.
Organized, consistent and ya you're right we probably need 10% of the country protesting by the summer.
Civili rights movement protests. not holding little signs and speeches.
It needs to be constant protests in Washington DC, where a significant number of people don’t go home overnight.
Size does not matter, it’s fine to start with a few dozen people.
As seen elsewhere , it’s not important individuals stay, it’s important the total number of people coming and going keep up a total.
Volunteer rides can get people back and forth and deliver groceries, hygiene, supplies and the hundreds of other things needed for a constant presence.
It’s very possible to work, manage childcare, and participate. Can go on day off or half a day.. can go once a month
If 3.5% can make a change, then 3.5% can also work in opposing that change.
3.5% can probably do it if such a change is unopposed. But it isn't unopposed.
Not denying your claim but also not positive per se, just a question:
Whats are the biggest injustices trump administration actively convoked against people with African American roots so far?
https://wondermark.com/c/1062/