The “Ironic Impact” of Pro-Democracy Activists: How Pro-Democratic Frames Undermine Support for Local Policy-Based Protests in Authoritarian Regimes

Abstract

Many protesters under authoritarian rule are “narrow in scope, involving only one or a few neighborhoods, villages, or groups of laid-off workers” and focus on demands that “have to do only with material interests and local grievances” (Lorentzen, 2013, p. 131). These protests typically blame local authorities and express loyalty to the political system. However, in the internet age, pro-democracy advocates often endorse and co-opt these local policy protests for their own ends. Does being endorsed by pro-democracy activists undermine support for these local policy protesters? Building on research suggesting that non-activists often perceive activists as extreme, I theorize that associating with pro-democratic frames can undermine support for local policy protesters by making the protesters seem more extreme and their protests less legal. Using an internet survey experiment in Vietnam, I find support for my argument. These findings highlight a challenge to building pro-democracy coalitions under authoritarian rule.

Keywords

protests prodemocracy movements authoritarian regimes Vietnamese politics rightful resistance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aronow

Baron

Pinson

(2019). A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis, 27(4), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.5

Bashir

Lockwood

Chasteen

A. L.

Nadolny

Noyes

(2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1983

Beinin

(2012). The rise of Egypt’s workers. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Beissinger

M. R.

(2002). Nationalist mobilization and the collapse of the soviet state. Cambridge University Press.

Brancati

(2016). Democracy protests: Origins, features, and significance. Cambridge University Press.

Brewer

(1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Cai

(2008). Power Structure and Regime Resilience: Contentious Politics in China. British Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000215

Chau

L. M.

(2019). “Extremely rightful” resistance: Land appropriation and rural agitation in contemporary Vietnam. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 49(3), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2018.1517896

Chen

(2012). Social protest and contentious authoritarianism in China. Cambridge University Press.

10.

Chenoweth

Lewis

(2013). Unpacking nonviolent campaigns: Introducing the NAVCO 2.0 dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 50(3), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343312471551

11.

Dobson

W. J.

(2012). The dictator’s learning curve: Inside the global battle for democracy. New York: Random House.

12.

Edwards

Arnon

(2019). Violence on many sides: Framing effects on protest and support for repression. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000413

13.

Evans

A. B.

Jr. (2012). Protests and civil society in Russia: The struggle for the Khimki forest. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 45(3–4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2012.06.002

14.

Feinberg

Willer

Kovacheff

(2020). The activist’s dilemma: Extreme protest actions reduce popular support for social movements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 1086–1111. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000230

15.

Frye

Borisova

(2019). Elections, protest, and trust in government: A natural experiment from Russia. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 820–832. https://doi.org/10.1086/702944

16.

(2018). Mobilizing without the masses: Control and contention in China. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Harms

(2012). Beauty as control in the new Saigon: Eviction, new urban zones, and atomized dissent in a Southeast Asian city. American Ethnologist, 39(4), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01392.x

18.

Human Rights Watch . (2020). Vietnam: Crackdown on peaceful dissent intensifies. Human Rights Watch. [Online] Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/19/vietnam-crackdown-peaceful-dissent-intensifies [Accessed 11 August 2020].

19.

Imai

Keele

Tingley

Yamamoto

(2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000414

20.

Inglehart

Welzel

(2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.

21.

Jasper

J. M.

(2004). A strategic approach to collective action: Looking for agency in social-movement choices. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.9.1.m112677546p63361

22.

Kerkvliet

B. J. T.

(2014). Protests over land in Vietnam: Rightful resistance and more. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 9(3), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1525/vs.2014.9.3.19

23.

Kerkvliet

B. T.

(2019). Speaking out in Vietnam: Public political criticism in a communist party-ruled nation . s.l.: Cornell University Press.

24.

Ketchley

El-Rayyes

(2020). Unpopular protest: Mass mobilization and attitudes to democracy in post-mubarak Egypt. The Journal of Politics, 83(1), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1086/709298

25.

Kim

(2000). The politics of democratization in Korea: The role of civil society . s.l.: University of Pittsburgh Pre.

26.

Kolstø

(2014). Russia’s nationalists flirt with democracy. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2014.0050

27.

(2017). The diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/lessons-learned-from-vietnams-dong-tam-standoff/(Accessed 23 April 2020).

28.

Lichbach

M. I.

(1987). Deterence or escalation? The puzzle of aggregate studies of repression and dissent. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(2), 266–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002787031002003

29.

Lohmann

(1994). The dynamics of informational cascades: The monday demonstrations in leipzig, east Germany, 1989–91 (pp. 42–101). World Politics.

30.

Lorentzen

P. L.

(2013). Regularizing rioting: Permitting public protest in an authoritarian regime. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 127–158. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00012051

31.

Lupu

Wallace

(2019). Violence, nonviolence, and the effects of international human rights law. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12416

32.

Maoz

McCauley

(2008). Threat, dehumanization, and support for retaliatory aggressive policies in asymmetric conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707308597

33.

Markussen

Ngo

Q.-T.

(2019). Economic and non-economic returns to communist party membership in Vietnam. World Development, 122(October 2019), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.002

34.

McDermott

(2011). Internal and external validity. In Druckman

J. N.

Green

D. P.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Lupia

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 27–40). Cambridge University Press.

35.

McLeod

D. M.

Detenber

B. H.

(1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication, 49(3), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02802.x

36.

McLeod

D. M.

Hertog

J. K.

(1992). The manufacture of ‘public opinion’ by reporters: Informal cues for public perceptions of protest groups. Discourse & Society, 3(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003003001

37.

Montgomery

Nyhan

Torres

(2018). How conditioning on post-treatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357

38.

Morozov

(2011). The dark side of interner freedom: The net delusion. Public Affairs.

39.

Muralidharan

Romero

Wuthrich

(2019). Factorial designs, model selection, and (incorrect) inference in randomized experiments. Unpublished Manuscript.

40.

Myers

D. J.

Caniglia

B. S.

(2004). All the rioting that’s fit to print: Selection effects in national newspaper coverage of civil disorders, 1968–1969. American Sociological Review, 69(4), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900403

41.

Nguyen

H. M.

(2015). Giá trị thực sự của nền dân chủ không thể phủ nhận. Công an nhân dân. [Online] Available at: http://cand.com.vn/Chong-dien-bien-hoa-binh/Gia-tri-thuc-su-cua-nen-dan-chu-khong-the-phu-nhan-358015/ [Accessed August 11, 2020].

42.

Nguyen

H. H.

(2017). Political dynamics of grassroots democracy in Vietnam . s.l.: Springer.

43.

Nugent

(2020). The psychology of repression and polarization. World Politics, 72(2), 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887120000015

44.

O’Brien

K. J.

(2013). Rightful resistance revisited. Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(6), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.821466

45.

O’Brien

K. J.

(2006). Rightful resistance in rural China. Cambridge University Press.

46.

Ong

(2022). The street and the ballot box: Interactions between social movements and electoral politics in authoritarian contexts. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Pan

Siegel

A. A.

(2020). How Saudi crackdowns fail to silence online dissent. American Political Science Review, 114(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000650

48.

Park

C. M. Y.

(2019). “Our lands are our lives”: Gendered experiences of resistance to land grabbing in rural Cambodia. Feminist Economics, 25(4), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2018.1503417

49.

Robertson

(2010). The politics of protest in hybrid regimes: Managing dissent in post-communist Russia. Cambridge University Press.

50.

Schock

(2005). Unarmed insurrections: People power movements in nondemocracies. University of Minnesota Press.

51.

Scott

J. C.

(1990). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance . s.l.: Yale University Press.

52.

Steinhardt

H. C.

(2016). In the name of the public: Environmental protest and the changing landscape of popular contention in China. The China Journal, 75, 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/684010

53.

Stenhouse

Heinrich

(2019). Breaking negative stereotypes of climate activists: A conjoint experiment. Science Communication, 41(3), 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019848766

54.

Tertytchnaya

Lankina

(2020). Electoral protests and political attitudes under electoral authoritarianism. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1086/705815

55.

Thurber

(2019). Social ties and the Strategy of civil resistance. International Studies Quarterly, 63, 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz049

56.

Trejo

(2012). Popular movements in autocracies: Religion, repression, and indigenous collective action in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.

57.

Truong

(2023). Replication data for: The “ironic impact” of pro-democracy activists: How pro-democratic frames undermine support for local policy-based protests in authoritarian regimes. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QN8SR4

58.

Truong

Schuler

(2021). The salience of the northern and southern identity in Vietnam. Asian Politics & Policy, 13(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12567

59.

Tufekci

(2017). Twitter and tear gas: The fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.

60.

Wouters

(2013). From the street to the screen: Characteristics of protest events as determinants of television news coverage. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 18(1), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.18.1.y6067731j4844067

61.

Zuo

Benford

R. D.

(1994). Mobilization processes and the 1989 Chinese democracy movement. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(1), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1994.tb01978.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.54 MB