Question to wyager or anyone else about that second point: what are some examples of political changes that people think were caused by protests, but in reality were already in development before the protest started? Also, who are the best-known advocates for this idea? If the answer is "I, wyager, came up with it", that's totally fine, I'm just curious if the concept has an interesting history.
Possibly Ghandi and India's independence? I would expect if British were still a major global force after WWII and were willing to project it, there would have to be a (successful) regular war for independence.
This can be probably applied on a lot of other former colonies.
Also, former Czechoslovakia in 1989 - the loss of communism. A lot of people back there think mass peaceful protests finished the era. But the fact is, the army declared 100% support of ruling communist party, and they would go with tanks to major cities if ordered and crushed the crowds. After shooting would start, there wouldn't be protests anymore, possibly civil war but highly asymmetric since civilians were not largely armed).
The reality is, eastern bloc was disintegrating due to weakening Soviet influence and its own incoming dissolution. This was in place for last 5 years and top folks knew it (albeit news blocked it all for common citizens to keep things quiet). Once the puppets lost the puppeteer, they didn't feel so confident (which is great, no need for another Yugoslavia back home).
> Possibly Ghandi and India's independence? I would expect if British were still a major global force after WWII and were willing to project it, there would have to be a (successful) regular war for independence.
First, that's speculation about an imagined history, not evidence. Regardless, protest can be an influence without, by itself, being decisive. Protestors don't have absolute power (a horrible idea, even to most protestors!). No single factor is decisive by itself.
There's also the dynamic systems viewpoint: between two "attractor states" the tipping point sits on a locally almost flat region. So a transition from one "stable" potential well to an other goes through these confusing no one's lands. Sure, the speed of transition is unknown, and obviously depends on a lot of things like how strong the attractors are (how deep the wells are), and how strong is the societal push - to push society uphill.
But just as there are no protests in North Korea, there is no need to protest for free speech in the US. (That's a crude analogy, yes. I know that free speech is a hot topic nowadays, but the point I'd like to make is that the "political speech against the state is protected by the state" is absolutely unquestioned, the debate is about how tolerant folks ought to be of racists/homophobes/xenophobes.) And between these two extremes there's a lot of countries. And somewhere in the middle it seems that protests happen, but it doesn't matter. (Eg. in Russia. Protests happen, but Putin is still king. Similarly in China [0] ... but in both cases it seems that the authoritarianism is getting stronger. But we don't know what society thinks. Are they getting completely brainwashed, like in NK? [1] In Russia and Belarus people seem to be aware that it could be better, but the current power structure is very efficient in crushing opposition, so people instead drink a lot and die early.)
