The intentional and inadvertent recurrence of mass unrest

• In Event: Dynamics of Protest and Mass Mobilization

Abstract

Why do some countries experience significant anti-government mass mobilization campaigns while others do not? In the recent wave of mass protest around the world, both liberal democracies and repressive autocracies have been engulfed in people power movements seeking to challenge the government on some grounds. While there are unique reasons why people might mobilize in different countries, the experience of prior unrest commonly colors the likelihood of future ones. I argue that significant mass mobilization campaigns leave a legacy, such that countries that have experienced nonviolent collective action in their recent history are more likely to experience mass mobilization events again, similar to civil war recurrence. However, one key difference between the legacies of civil wars and civil resistance is that the success of violent unrest dampens the likelihood of future wars while the success of nonviolent mass action fuels its recurrence. Especially when a historical mass action event is successful and celebrated as embodying the people’s common struggle, there is a tendency for people to default to this method of contention. In order for the success of nonviolent resistance to inspire emulation, there must be societal channels in place to share the stories and lessons of people power. Therefore, countries that have a history of mass unrest are more likely to see future mass mobilization, especially if the country provides high quality basic education that teaches their citizens about their history. A large n-analysis of 154 countries from 1945 to 2013, and a case study of South Korea’s protest activities pre- and post- democratization lend strong support to these claims. Mass movements played a key role in South Korea’s fight for democracy and has since served as inspiration to facilitate more collective mass action. However, the danger is that the method can become conflated with purpose, such that any form of mass action is justified as being “democratic” even if mass mobilization is used to further non-democratic ideals. Additionally, as protest activity becomes a mainstay in the repertoire of political participation, the downside is that it often comes at the expense of institutional politics. As such, having a robust protest culture is neither a clear indicator of a country’s democratic strength nor weakness but often a result of path dependence on prior mass action.

Author

• Sooyeon Kang, Loyola University Chicago