This is a stupid article.
Why would we need to do something to destroy a government that is destroying itself?
....says the BBC.
This is why the anarchists claim they are justified in using violence then “threatened” by a differing opinion.
I wonder if the statistics accurately account for countries like China, Cuba and NK.
In many cases that just means that the government has little support, and the transition is inevitable anyway. In cases where real tyrannical governments are in control even large portions of the public protesting may not make a difference.
Interestingly, the research suggests that the reason for non-violent protests succeeding more than violent attempts at changing the government is that the non-violent protests attract more participants, and therefore can reach the 3.5% threshold more easily.
The article also notes that the lack of access to weapons hinders the ability of violence based groups to succeed. That is probably at the root of the left's desire to disarm the population, since based on the researcher's findings a group which combined armed and non-violent protest that was supported by a few percent of the public would be able to change most governments.
Specifically: Nonviolent protests were perhaps launched only when it was ALREADY obvious to the protesters that they would be successful (e.g., when the regime against they were protesting was already tottering).
Armed conflicts, in contrast, are perhaps initiated even though no such clarity or certainty exists (and their failure-rate might be correspondingly high).
A basic flaw in reasoning.
I also wouldn't be surprised if apples were being compared with oranges here: Conflicts in which one side attempts to employ peaceful protests (or views non-violence as a feasible alternative) are probably fundamentally different than conflicts in which at least one side views violence as the "best" option (or is totally exaspirated).
Regards,
We let them turn us into a #mobacracy. It was us that compromised the uncompromising.