Protests are common and receive a lot of media attention. In previous research, protests have been considered successful and ended when those in power gave in to the protesters' demands. But Elena Leuschner, a PhD student in political science, argues that concessions are only ambiguous signs of protest success and, therefore, an ineffective tool for ending protests.
“Politicians are often unsure whether concessions will meet protesters' demands, which often leads to vague promises that can be easily withdrawn. At the same time, protesters are unsure whether politicians will keep their promises, which can lead to protests continuing.”
Greater chances of concessions for peaceful protests and shared political views
Elena Leuschner has studied how politicians react to street protests and the types of concessions they are willing to make when pressured. To understand the underlying reasons why concessions are sometimes made, she conducted a survey experiment with over 1 000 Belgian local politicians. Politicians were asked to consider both peaceful and disruptive, as well as large and small street protests related to the lack of housing in different municipalities.
“Politicians were most willing to make concessions during peaceful protests. These were perceived as manageable and legitimate, which made it easier for politicians to engage with protesters and listen to their demands. Large street protests were considered difficult to control and politicians therefore preferred to deal with them internally within the party or with police assistance, rather than meeting protesters and engaging in dialogue with them.”
Elena Leuschner also investigated whether politicians are more likely to respond to protesters' demands if they share the same demographic characteristics and political beliefs. This part of the thesis is based on a survey experiment with over 1,100 Swedish local politicians focusing on school funding.
“Politicians were most willing to make concessions when their political views aligned with those of the protesters, while demographic factors had little impact. On the other hand, willingness to make concessions decreased if the protests were perceived as illegitimate. Left-wing politicians were more receptive to protesters' demands than right-wing politicians, which may be partly explained by the fact that left-wing politicians are more likely to see protests as a legitimate form of political participation.”
Lack of trust in non-democratic systems
To understand the consequences of concessions, Elena Leuschner studied how authoritarian leaders have dealt with street protests demanding political reforms. Through a quantitative analysis of protest data from 18 autocracies between 1991 and 2012, she shows that authoritarian leaders sometimes gave in to protesters' demands, but that the concessions did not necessarily stop the protests.
“Examples from the protests in Hong Kong and Algeria in 2019 show that state concessions can instead strengthen mobilization. Protesters there lacked confidence that the government would actually deliver on its promises, and mistrust kept protesters mobilized, despite actually achieving political success.”
In democracies, the level of tolerance for different types of protests is higher than in autocracies. In democracies, politicians can be held accountable because a dissatisfied public has the opportunity to vote them out of power. Elena Leuschner also shows that Swedish municipal politicians lost voter support in the next election after putting forward unpopular proposals for school closures, even though the proposals were withdrawn.
“Protesters‘ trust in politicians’ accountability is crucial for political consensus to be reached in protests. While trust is generally higher in democracies, both politicians and protesters lack full understanding of each other's intentions, regardless of the form of government”, says Elena Leuschner.
