HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE 3.5.% RULE?

HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE 3.5.% RULE?

Our world is fraught with demonstrations and protests almost every day in favor or against some initiative. We read about demonstrations against building oil pipelines, or government cutbacks or killing baby seals. Or a demonstration may support gay rights, aboriginal land claims or a new LRT metro line in our city. Demonstrations are a very popular way of attracting attention and bringing about change. Some demonstrations are peaceful and some eventually resort to force and violence. I recently read a fascinating study that identified one of the most interesting factors for a successful peaceful demonstration. It is called the 3.5.% Rule and I never would have guessed it.

Research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, has unveiled that 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. For example, in 1986, millions of Filipinos took to the streets of Manila in peaceful protest and prayer in the People Power movement. The Marcos regime folded on the fourth day. In 2003, the people of Georgia ousted Eduard Shevardnadze through the bloodless Rose Revolution, in which protestors stormed the parliament building holding the flowers in their hands. Earlier this year, the presidents of Sudan and Algeria both announced they would step aside after decades in office, thanks to peaceful campaigns of resistance.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change. Her premise is further supported by the work of suffrage campaigner Susan B Anthony, the Indian independence activist Mahatma Gandhi and the US civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King who all convincingly argued for the power of peaceful protest.

While 3.5% seems a small number, in reality, it must translate to hundreds of thousands or millions of active participants. Some relatively large nonviolent protests also failed, such as the protests against the communist party in East Germany in the 1950s, which attracted 400,000 members (around 2% of the population) at their peak, but still failed to bring about change. Mobilizing and maintaining large numbers of active supporters is no small feat.

The current six-month demonstration by students in Hong Kong is an interesting dynamic that has started to change from its initial strategy. When the demonstrations against the Chinese government began this spring, it was a massive peaceful demonstration. Recently, it has become much more violent with people killed, active fighting and resistance, Molotov cocktails being thrown and a university under siege. If one were to accept Chenoweth’s premise, the Hong Kong demonstration is going to fail as it is becoming more violent. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the weeks to come.

As an aside, for Greta Thunberg's environmental movement to successfully impact climate change, it will require 3.5% active peaceful support of the 7.7 billion population of the world. This would amount to 270 million people. Quite a challenge if you believe the 3.5.% Rule!