The ruler does depend on so many people to stay in power, like they're not doing it themselves. And when very large numbers of people refuse to continue supporting them, things collapse rather quickly. So that's one kind of tricky factor that explains some variation, i think, in the outcomes of non violent movements.
Does power truly flow from the barrel of a gun? Pop culture and conventional history often teach us that violence is the most effective way to produce change. But is that common assumption actually true? Political scientist Erica Chenoweth, who has studied more than 100 years of revolutions and insurrections, says the answer is counterintuitive.
If you like this show, please check out our new podcast, My Unsung Hero! And if you'd like to support our work, you can do so at support.hiddenbrain.org.