POPULAR PROTEST - HOW IT CAN (AND CAN'T) WORK.
The experience of eastern Europe in 1989 made clear that mass protests can sometimes bring enormous change. Apparently immovable regimes were swept aside. Many Western analysts attributed the changes above all to Mikhail Gorbachev, as though he had flicked a switch which allowed the nations to become free.But it can also be argued that the Soviet leader merely recognised that the impetus of change was now unstoppable. Comparison of the experience both of those eastern European countries which came under immediate Soviet control, such as East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and those, such as Romania and Albania, where the protests were part of a process quite unrelated to Moscow. Later demonstrations in Belgrade in 1996-97, though ultimately unsuccessful, came close to toppling Slobodan Milosevic from power.
These examples come from authoritarian or dictatorial regimes. But there is little question that protests can achieve much within democracies, too, as a way of signalling to government leaders that change is needed. Important questions that arise include the question of timing; motivation; the snowball effect; peaceful methods vs violence; and, of course, sympathetic media coverage. One paradox needs to be addressed: violence often helps to propel the issue on to the front pages and on to television news. And yet, violence also ensures that coverage will mostly be negative. The "copycat" patterns of media coverage. If a story becomes an issue, then related stories suddenly also become of interest. All of these lessons have relevance for how best to exert pressure for change.