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.
“There weren’t any campaigns that had failed after they had achieved 3.5% participation during a peak event,” says Chenoweth – a phenomenon she has called the “3.5% rule”.
Me scatching my head thinking,“10% of Hong Kong protested and still got stomped by China’s boot.” I suppose it could be argued that it’s not the same thing.
Maybe Hong Kong counts as a military occupation? I mean, I doubt if 3.5% of Ukrainians protested that Russia would just leave, so external occupations probably don’t count.
I think the research was done prior to that event. It’s a bit dated at this point.
Also, it’s a bit ambiguous how to count Hong Kong as a semi-autonomous region in China. Should you measure by percentage of Hong Kongers or percentage of Chinese? I might think the latter, since they’re subject to the force of that nation.
Hong Kong was supposed to be free to control itself until 2048, democracy and free speech etc. China the decided that Hong Kong was starting to getting a little too free and started to tell the sitting president to shut the protests down.
China eventually took back control and instituted a national security law that could be used for pretty much anything after the crackdown didn’t quell the unrest.
I was actively following it live as it unfolded. It was very sad to see how much young people fought for basic freedoms and still lost it.
I remember being torn between my general non-violence stance and also understanding the protestors reciprocating the police violence.
I don’t think we can accept your argument, because in point in fact Hong Kong was an independent country. Certainly trying to disagree but now we’re getting into a definition question, but if that’s going to stop us from applying the proposed principle, then we can do that in every situation.
HK has literally never been independent, it went from being a Qing fishing village to a British concession, to a British overseas territory and then to a PRC special autonomous region.
It came close to full autonomy during the end of British rule and the start of PRC rule (before Xi), but it never has been independent.
Not too sure about that. PRC’s PLA has literally been in HK since 1997. You can’t really call yourself “independent” when you have an outside force occupying you.
Taiwan does have its own military, so that’s why they are considered de facto independant.
Me scatching my head thinking,“10% of Hong Kong protested and still got stomped by China’s boot.” I suppose it could be argued that it’s not the same thing.
Maybe Hong Kong counts as a military occupation? I mean, I doubt if 3.5% of Ukrainians protested that Russia would just leave, so external occupations probably don’t count.
the Arab spring also springs to mind.
Many Arab Spring revolutions did work; they were just swallowed by counterrevolution later.
3.5% of the people work all the time if you cherry pick your data.
I think the research was done prior to that event. It’s a bit dated at this point.
Also, it’s a bit ambiguous how to count Hong Kong as a semi-autonomous region in China. Should you measure by percentage of Hong Kongers or percentage of Chinese? I might think the latter, since they’re subject to the force of that nation.
Hong Kong was supposed to be free to control itself until 2048, democracy and free speech etc. China the decided that Hong Kong was starting to getting a little too free and started to tell the sitting president to shut the protests down.
China eventually took back control and instituted a national security law that could be used for pretty much anything after the crackdown didn’t quell the unrest.
I was actively following it live as it unfolded. It was very sad to see how much young people fought for basic freedoms and still lost it.
I remember being torn between my general non-violence stance and also understanding the protestors reciprocating the police violence.
I don’t think we can accept your argument, because in point in fact Hong Kong was an independent country. Certainly trying to disagree but now we’re getting into a definition question, but if that’s going to stop us from applying the proposed principle, then we can do that in every situation.
HK has literally never been independent, it went from being a Qing fishing village to a British concession, to a British overseas territory and then to a PRC special autonomous region.
It came close to full autonomy during the end of British rule and the start of PRC rule (before Xi), but it never has been independent.
Not too sure about that. PRC’s PLA has literally been in HK since 1997. You can’t really call yourself “independent” when you have an outside force occupying you.
Taiwan does have its own military, so that’s why they are considered de facto independant.