Sometime ago I read an article on BBC world in the new "future" sectiion with a heading of:
The "3.5% rule": How a small minority can change the world.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

My first reaction was immediately about the word "rule". How can there be "a rule" amongst such complex matter as world changes?
But then I read the subtitle:
"Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts"
But that seemed to be something others and more reasonable to do research on than that "3.5 rule"
and then I read further:
"and those engaging a treshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change"
and with that I wanted some more enlightenment, as I found that such a bold statement.

I searched first for the author Erica Chenoweth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erica_Chenoweth
And as I read it all, who am I, simple soldier, to comment on such an authority?

My thoughts were:
It can be that many non violent protests succeeded if they had a level of participants of a minimum of 2 to 4% of the population, but can it also be that to let succeed that process with some 3%, there has to be also a large "achterban" (found nothing in English: the adherents behind the scene, who support the public actors?)? And that was perhaps also worth a study? From what treshold of hidden supporters is a non violent revolution possible? And from what treshold of repressive government supporters and level of repressive power, who try to oppose the revolutionary ones, is a revolution perhaps doomed for failure?

And in the article I see also some critiques if I understand them well:
Isabel Bramsen, who studies international conflict at the University of Copenhagen 

"Regarding the “3.5% rule”, she points out that while 3.5% is a small minority, such a level of active participation probably means many more people tacitly agree with the cause.These researchers are now looking to further untangle the factors that may lead to a movement’s success or failure. Bramsen and Chandler, for instance, both emphasise the importance of unity among demonstrators.

While the "great tenors" as a Temperance, nordmann and MM were back, I thought to receive some comments about the article. And suddenly Temperance and MM are gone again? But yes for MM it is the AllSaints weekend, one of the busiest of the year...and dear Temperance perhaps down by all this turmoil about the future UK-EU relationship? Or is it the turmoil in the UK itself? As a consolation: it is as worse overhere in Belgium for the moment: There are two parties, who have to find a compromise to form a federal government, one in the Flemish region and one in the Francophone region and the Flemish side is as far to the right as the Francophone side is to the left...

Kind regards, Paul.

I can't hazard a guess as to what may transpire in Belgium, Paul.

Going back to 1688 and the "glorious and bloodless revolution" of that year (bloodless but not in my opinion particularly glorious) when James II was deposed as King of England and replaced by his son-in-law and daughter, William and Mary, the number of peers that wrote to William pledging allegiance was I believe seven so a relatively small number helped influence change there.  Of course, James's second (and Catholic) wife giving birth to a son caused alarm because at that time the majority of people in England didn't want a Catholic dynasty.

Whether 3.5% of a population is enough to effect a change I personally would have my doubts.  Maybe 3.5% could act as influencers and gradually bring about change.

I've heard one school of thought that the Easter uprising in Ireland in 1916 grew in grass roots popularity because the British powers-that-be executed (shot) the rebels.  I'm sure if that argument is wrong nordmann will correct it when he returns to the board.

Paul wrote:

 

While the "great tenors" as a Temperance, nordmann and MM were back, I thought to receive some comments about the article... 

I'm not a tenor - I'm a soprano! No - hold on - that makes me think of: "It ain't over until the fat lady sings." 

Horror upon horror with that image, Paul. Got all sorts of visions now of me as Brunhilde  (no!) and nord and MM doing a duet of "Just one Cornetto!"...

Temperance, you can say what you want, but nothing can restrain my joy of seeing you back....
Kind regards from Paul.

Until I see a definition of what constitutes 3.5% and what constitutes a "population" I am afraid I will have to also keep my own humble castrato in check.

If the population comprises ten people, does that mean one of the revolutionary bunch is veering towards schizophrenia? Or, if the population does not nicely conform to politically demarcated borders then how does one count them? When the Irish successfully revolted against British rule (eventually after many failed attempts) did they do it as a small percentage of the British people or a rather large percentage of the Irish people? How can the poor Kurds ever even entertain the notion of a successful revolution given their current distribution? And would they have to confine it to one state in which they reside to match this "study's" rather ridiculous mathematics? What happens if they achieve a homeland that includes every contiguous place in which they live? Would that mean change was effected in Armenia based on 0.05% of the population protesting? Would the 18% in Turkey be subsumed into the 99% of a "Greater Kurdistan"? In which case does that also then include the Jewanshiris? Where in the 3.5% critical number do they figure? Or is it allowed to have 3.5% of 3.5% in some circumstances to keep the mathematics of this ridiculous "political study" coherent?

I detest pseudo-science, and in this case my detestation will therefore extend to pseudo-political-science. Chenoweth says "There weren’t any campaigns that had failed after they had achieved 3.5% participation during a peak event,” but then conveniently forgets to add a definition for how this "peak" was ascertained (was the failure of the 1798 rebellion in Ireland down to the fact that despite involving about 80% of the population in a very traumatic incident it never "peaked"?) except to conclude that in instances where political change occurred some kind of protest sometimes preceded it and, surprise surprise, the number of protesters could often be said to have exceeded 3.5% (except when sometimes it didn't). And, as Lir pointed out with her establishment coup from the 17th century that was staged by about 0.00035% of the population, what the hell is a "Revolution" anyway?

Who mentioned Cornettos? Haven't seen one in years and now I'm craving one ...

A Cornetto? ... nah, I'd prefer a beer:

Oh, brilliant MM! Brings back such happy memories of the Manchester Ship Canal.

That Gladys Allcroft looks just like Fleabag - or she thinks she does.

Temperance wrote:

Oh, brilliant MM! Brings back such happy memories of the Manchester Ship Canal.

That Gladys Allcroft looks just like Fleabag - or she thinks she does.

 
I join Temperance, MM. Brilliant, I have no other word for it.
Kind regards, Paul.

nordmann, thanks for your comments. It fits with all what I had against the article, but as usually said more coherently and eloquently.
What I wanted to point to, and not done fully in my first message, was the critique against the author of the BBC article: a certain David Robson.
He starts with a title: The "3.5" rule: How a small minority can change the world.
While if you read the article the most important subject was, in my opinion, a more interesting study and perhaps more reliable, more general and more defendable: hence the title had to be the subtitle:
"Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts"

And I see now myself, what a wrong title can do, as I dared to do sometimes overhere too and was rightly criticized by nordmann and MM if I recall it well. 
But if even those BBC reporters as a David Robson dare to do it... ...?

Kind regards, Paul.