Do protests work? Scholars say yes: mass movements from suffrage and civil rights to Black Lives Matter have reshaped laws, elections, and public attitudes. Large, disciplined, nonviolent protests tend to build sympathy and organizational capacity; repression can increase support, while violence or destructive tactics usually erode it. Effects are often gradual, unfolding over years as movements grow and reshape politics.
Do Protests Work? What Historians and Political Scientists Say
The March on Washington, in Washington DC on 28 August 1963.Photograph: Underwood Archives/Getty Images
Mass protest is a recurring force in American politics — from abolition and women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement and modern campaigns such as Black Lives Matter. Scholars of history and political science show that public demonstrations can reshape laws, change elections, build activist networks, and shift public opinion — but their effects depend heavily on strategy, scale and context.
How Protest Has Changed Policy and Politics
Historical movements show the reach of collective action: protests helped expand voting rights for women, dismantle legal segregation, and create political space for marriage equality. Large demonstrations can focus attention, elevate marginalized voices, and create new political actors. The 2017 Women’s March, for example, mobilized hundreds of thousands in Washington, D.C., and millions nationwide; researchers link that surge of activism to a notable increase in women running for office in the 2018 midterms and to measurable shifts in local voting patterns.
Case Studies: From the Women’s March to the Tea Party
Carmen Perez-Jordan and other organizers say the Women’s March changed people’s sense of political possibility: “It was unquestionably impactful,” she has said, noting the march inspired new candidates and movement-building. Empirical work finds counties with higher march turnout shifted toward Democratic candidates, and many observers credit the march with energizing women and candidates of color.
The political mechanics are not partisan: the 2009 Tea Party protests produced an opposite but parallel effect, with areas showing higher Tea Party participation tilting more Republican in the 2010 midterms. Scholars argue that activating one additional committed activist often produces more downstream influence than winning a single extra vote at the ballot box.
Scale, Momentum, and the "3.5%" Heuristic
Political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan famously identified a heuristic — often called the 3.5% rule — from a study of civil resistance campaigns between 1900 and 2006: nonviolent movements that mobilized about 3.5% of the population at their peak were much likelier to succeed in toppling regimes. Chenoweth emphasizes that this is a peak, not cumulative, measure and not an absolute threshold: some nonviolent campaigns have succeeded with lower visible participation, and the rule has been refined in later work.
Why Participation Matters
Research shows that taking part in a protest changes people’s behavior: those who join one demonstration are more likely to participate again, grow into organizers, donate, or run for office. Studies of the 1964 Freedom Summer found that actual participants sustained higher levels of activism throughout their lives than those who merely intended to participate. Jeremy Pressman calls this "organizational success": movements often measure impact by membership growth, fundraising, and sustained media attention, even when immediate policy goals are unmet.
Strategy: Nonviolence Versus Violence
Evidence from the U.S. repeatedly shows nonviolent discipline is more effective at winning broad sympathy and pressuring authorities. Robb Willer highlights the civil rights movement’s strategic nonviolence — from the Montgomery boycott to sit-ins and mass marches — as critical to its success. Visible repression of peaceful protesters (for example, the 1965 Selma attacks) has historically increased public sympathy and political pressure for change.
By contrast, when demonstrations involve violence, property destruction, or tactics perceived as endangering people (e.g., arson or blocking critical infrastructure), they tend to lose public support. Incidents of brawling and disorder during the counter-protests in Charlottesville in 2017 illustrate how even relatively small episodes of violence can undermine broader public backing.
Measuring Success Beyond Legislation
Scholars argue we should expand how we define protest success. Beyond laws and elections, protests can deliver emotional and social benefits: Act Up activists have reported long-lasting validation, identity formation, and community from their participation. These personal and organizational gains matter because protest effects usually unfold slowly — cascading across years or decades rather than overnight.
Conclusion
Protests are powerful but not magical. They can change policy, alter electoral outcomes, build movements, and sustain participants’ sense of agency — especially when large, sustained, and nonviolent. Their ripple effects are often gradual; measuring impact requires looking at organizational growth, shifts in public opinion, and long-term political change as well as immediate policy wins.
Key takeaway: Strategy, scale, and discipline determine whether protest sharpens or dulls its political effect — and nonviolent, organized mobilization most reliably produces sympathy, organizational capacity, and long-term change.
