Conquering and coercing: Nonviolent anti-regime protests and the pathways to democracy

Abstract

Recent research finds an association between nonviolent protests and democratic transitions. However, existing scholarship either does not specify the pathways through which nonviolent protests bring about democratization or conduct systematic empirical analyses demonstrating that the specified pathways are operative. This article proposes four pathways through which nonviolent anti-regime protests encourage democratic transitions, emphasizing their ability to directly conquer or indirectly coerce such transitions. Most simply, they can conquer democratic reforms by directly overthrowing authoritarian regimes and installing democracies. They can also coerce democratic reforms through three additional pathways. Nonviolent anti-regime protests can coerce incumbent elites into democratic reforms by threatening the survival of authoritarian regimes. They also increase the likelihood of elite splits, which promote negotiated democratic reforms. Finally, they encourage leadership change within the existing authoritarian regime. Following leadership change, nonviolent movements remain mobilized and are able to coerce democratic concessions from the regime’s new leaders. Our within-regime analyses provide robust empirical support for each pathway. We show that nonviolent anti-regime protests conquer democratic reforms by ousting autocratic regimes and replacing them with democracies. Nonviolent anti-regime protests also coerce elites into democratic reforms by threatening regime and leader survival. These findings highlight the importance of protest goals and tactics and also that nonviolent anti-regime protests have both direct and indirect effects on democratization.

How to Capture Global Protest Trends: Using Survey Data Recycling Data to Construct Cross-National Trends in Protest

“…A parallel literature shows that nonviolent protest contributes to democratization, in part because of the broader popular appeal of nonviolent strategies (Dahlum et al, 2020). By increasing the bargaining power of moderate elites inside of authoritarian regimes, contributing to elite splits, threatening the state’s economic viability, and undermining support in the military and the upper classes for authoritarian regimes, protest can be a major factor in promoting democratization (Bratton & van de Walle 1997; Chenoweth & Stephan 2011; della Porta, 2014; Kadiver & Caren, 2016; Kim & Kroeger, 2019; Nepstad, 2013; Teorell, 2010; Ulfelder, 2005). And there is the question as to whether reduced contestation has led to declining protest in the postdemocratization period.…”

“…Dodson (2015) finds that political globalization is creating opportunities for protest, while economic globalization is reducing the autonomy and resources for protest. A similar discussion focuses on democratization and authoritarian regimes where globalization, media development, rising education and economic growth along with cultural change are seen as creating protest waves that threaten these regimes by strengthening opposition groups, weakening military and upper class support for these regimes and creating political pressures to democratize (Bratton & van de Walle, 1997; Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011; Dahlum, 2018; della Porta, 2014; Kadiver & Caren, 2016; Kim & Kroeger, 2019; Nepstad, 2013; Teorell, 2010; Ulfelder, 2005). Working in the opposite direction, others note that the protest upsurge that led to democratization in the 1980s and early 1990s has stalled in many of these countries and that protest, voting, and other forms of participation have declined, contributing to dedemocratization (Cianetti et al, 2018; Dimitrova, 2018; Ekiert & Kubik, 2017; Greskovits, 2015; Pleyers & Sava, 2016; Ost 2005; Szabo, 1996; V-Dem Institute, 2020; Vanhuysee, 2006).…”

EDUCATION AND REVOLUTIONS. Why do revolutionary uprisings take violent or nonviolent forms?

“…Since that time the number of such revolutions has increased even more, and in the 2000s and 2010s one could observe the emergence of a considerable number of studies dedicated to the answer to the question why some revolutions lead to democratic rather than authoritarian outcomes (Ackerman and Karatnycky 2005;Stephan and Chenoweth 2008;Johnstad 2010;Stradiotto and Guo 2010;Chenoweth and Stephan 2011;Celestino and Gleditsch 2013;Bayer, Bethke and Lambach 2016;Butcher and Svensson 2016;Kim and Kroeger 2019;Rasler, Thompson and Bou Nassif 2021).…”

“…It is highly remarkable that the main finding of the abovementioned studies (supported by a number of rather rigorous tests on the basis of a very wide range of worldwide empirical data) is that violent revolutions ('campaigns') are very unlikely to lead to the formation of stable democratic regimes, whereas this is much more probable as a result of nonviolent revolutions (Ackerman and Karatnycky 2005;Stephan and Chenoweth 2008;Chenoweth and Stephan 2011;Butcher and Svensson 2016;Kim and Kroeger 2019;Rasler, Thompson and Bou Nassif 2021).…”

Debunking the Myths Behind Nonviolent Civil Resistance

“…It was discovered that nonviolent resistance is more successful (53%) than violent rebellion and insurgency (26%). Nonviolent movements were observed to be likelier to bring about policy change, less likely to result in civil war, and societies that experience a nonviolent revolution are likelier to be democratic after a transition (Bethke, 2017; Bethke and Pinckney, 2019; Celestino and Gleditsch, 2013; Kim and Kroeger, 2019). Chenoweth and Stephan’s analyses ended up being turned into a book titled Why Civil Resistance Works (2011, Columbia University Press) that won the American Political Science Association’s best book award in 2012.…”