The Protest-Repression Paradox

Tragedy and Its Discontents

Photo by Robert Schulz on Unsplash

Authoritarian regimes use violent repression to quash dissent and intimidate the population—but it doesn’t always work. According to social movement scholars, “catalyzing events” can motivate citizens to act, despite danger, and express public outrage through mass protest. The catalyzing event exposes a moral injury to the Body Politic; a general sense of injustice grows, formerly disengaged bystanders join in, and mobilization becomes widespread. When the state responds by surging additional armed agents to crack down on protesters, the force applied against the citizens rebounds to threaten the regime. This is known as the Protest-Repression Paradox.

When state agents engage in acts of violence that society considers egregious, the authorities try to “get ahead of” events before the public outcry becomes deafening. First, they lie. Blame the victim. Tout violent agents as heroes. Fire up the propaganda machine, use the regime’s media mouthpieces, flacks, and true believers to push an “official” (scripted) message. Government authorities want to make sure the victim doesn’t become a martyr. Their secret police demolish ad hoc shrines to the deceased, physically intimidate residents to spread fear, and yell at pedestrians who witness their aggression to “move on.” If this is ineffective, state violence escalates. The regime floods the streets with paramilitary, hunts down “ringleaders,” conducts indiscriminate arrests, creates new detention areas, and suppresses the media.

Scholars have studied the “paradox of repression” in both democracies and authoritarian states. The dynamics are similar, but the resolution takes different forms.

A truly catalytic event occurred during the height of the American Civil Rights movement in 1963: white supremacists bombed Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church on a Sunday morning, killing four girls and injuring twenty others. The nation’s moral revulsion against such a heinous act stimulated widespread opposition to racial segregation. The Civil Rights Movement had reached the point at which strong public support for equal rights compelled politicians to act. The Civil Rights Act, which dismantled segregation, was signed in 1964, and the Voting Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination at the ballot box, was signed in 1965. These reforms were possible because the U.S. Constitution provided a framework for change within the existing structure of the state.

Authoritarian regimes don’t have such remedies available. For popular demands to be fulfilled, the regime must fall. A democratic transition can occur through negotiation (Poland, 1989-90); through the violent overthrow of a dictator (Romania, 1989; Indonesia, 1998); or by regime collapse (USSR, 1991).

How does this relate to what’s happening now in the US?

The killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis is potentially a catalytic event. Certainly, in the aftermath of Ms. Good’s murder, we see a proliferation of protest events across the entire country, followed by the obfuscation of Trump officials and a surge of repressive force in Minneapolis. This accords with expectations of the protest-repression model. But interpreting the situation is tricky for two reasons.

First, with heightened tension in the Twin Cities and a fluid situation on the ground, it’s impossible to tell which way things will go. If protests become violent and destructive, state authorities will have a pretext to declare an emergency and establish de facto martial law. This would likely freeze ongoing mobilization and drive opposition efforts underground. If protests remain nonviolent and Republican representatives begin to defect, continuing the ICE repression in Minneapolis would undermine the Trump regime’s authority and reduce its power.

Second, it’s unclear what kind of government the US currently has. Is the US Constitution still operative? Administration officials ignore judges’ orders, routinely lie to the public, and coerce schools, law firms, and media companies by threatening to withhold resources. Public opinion is ignored by the president and his appointees; administration policies are pursued on the basis of momentary whims. This is not the hallmark of a democracy. The consensus among political scientists is that the US has already transformed into an authoritarian-democratic hybrid called competitive authoritarianism. And so, it’s unclear how the current cycle of mobilization and repression will be resolved. Democratic institutions that could be used to implement structural reforms have been damaged or, as in the case of the Justice Department, turned into instruments of authoritarian control. A democratically oriented conclusion to this cycle of protest will require acknowledging the inadequacy of our institutions and accepting what may seem like radical proposals for political reconstruction.

In the meantime, we are in the midst of a cycle of protest whose endpoint remains uncertain. The hopeful signs are these: tactical innovations (inflatable frog costumes, use of whistles) that signal social solidarity and peaceful intent among demonstrators; the conjunction of organic mobilization (passersby taking out cell phone cameras to video violent acts by roving masked agents) and civic organization (rapid responder groups distributing whistles and conducting “rights” trainings); master framing (NO KINGS) that allows various interest groups to coordinate under a pro-democracy banner; and, elected officials taking cues from popular mobilization to address the needs of the moment and of the people.

Organization and solidarity beat chaos and incompetent malevolence. Eventually. Keep at it.

I’ve drawn from my own research for this post. Here are the relevant publications:

Osa, Maryjane. 2003. Solidarity and Contention: Networks of Polish Opposition. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. (Still available for purchase! Click the link.)

Osa, Maryjane and Cristina Corduneanu-Huci. 2009. “Running Uphill: Political Opportunity in Nondemocracies” (with a new methodological appendix). In Masamichi Sasaki. ed., New Frontiers in Comparative Sociology. Leiden, Boston: Brill. (Also available for purchase!)

Osa, Maryjane and Kurt Schock. 2007. “A Long, Hard Slog: Political Opportunities, Social Networks and the Mobilization of Dissent in Non-Democracies.” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change, Volume 27, 123-153.

Most of these articles are behind journal paywalls. If you want a copy, email me, and I’ll send you a pdf.