Waarom Janoekovitsj het niet redde

Politiek wetenschapper Lucan Way in The Washington Post:

One important reason for the stunning collapse of Yanukovych’s regime was that he chose the wrong type of repression to suppress protests. By repeatedly engaging in extremely provocative and public displays of repression – high intensity coercion – Yanukovych simultaneously stoked protests and undermined the unity of the pro government coalition. Yanukovych would likely have survived if he had simply sat tight and let the protests peter out. Protesters might have remained on the square – but they would have increasingly been viewed as a small nuisance rather than a serious challenge to the President. […] [High intensity coercion] can be contrasted with low-intensity coercion. Low intensity coercion involves repressive actions that are largely out of the public eye: low-profile physical harassment, kidnapping and torture of low-level activists and supporters; the use of security forces or paramilitary thugs to vandalize opposition or independent media offices; and to harass, detain, and occasionally murder journalists and opposition activists. It also includes non-violent measures like firing opposition activists from their jobs.

Low intensity coercion is the bread and butter of almost all contemporary authoritarian regimes. Such coercion is used primarily to raise the costs of opposition and preempt serious challenges. Low intensity coercion can also be used to discourage protest activity by raising the costs of protest and thereby encouraging people to give up.

Uiteindelijk is dit ook wat (in de meeste gevallen) met de Occupy-beweging is gebeurd: een combinatie van gewoon laten zitten, kleine pesterijen en het opleggen van ‘redelijke’ beperkingen. Op een gegeven moment bloedt zo’n beweging dan vanzelf wel dood. Gewoon omdat het uithoudingsvermogen van een staat veel groter is dan van welke individuele actievoerder dan ook.

En overheden weten dat.

Open artikel