Erica Chenoweth initially thought that only violent protests were effective. However after analyzing 323 movements the results were opposite of what Erica thought:
For the next two years, Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables related to success criteria, participant categories, state capacity, and more. The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change.
If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.
I would ask her to correlate them with existence of violent movements alongside.
The MLK-Malcolm X dichotomy
In short, the presence of a militant option alongside your nonviolent option is quite useful in compelling the opposition to your side because the other option is the militant one.
And in that case, i would credit the violent movement with the success, and the “nonviolent” movement with giving them an ego saving out.
As a test: I would like to ask this researcher, peacefully, to cut the lib shit.
No one’s ever gotten rid of their oppressors by asking nicely.
no but sometimes by blockading streets. America’s understanding of nonviolence is poisoned
No but see what if they did.