Listen to the audio version >> 

In many countries around the world, mass “people power” revolts have blocked authoritarian takeovers and eliminated dictatorial regimes. This commentary presents four cases from around the world that illustrate the potential power of such “social strikes.” As Trump’s MAGA authoritarianism grows, such actions provide a potential means for reasserting popular democracy.

Donald Trump and his accomplices are conducting an attack not only on democracy but on society. This is manifested in their executive usurpation, aka creeping coup, which is seizing all the powers of the government and concentrating them in the personal will of the President. It involves the elimination of all bases of opposition, not only in the agencies of government but in civil society, including universities, trade unions, and media. It is revealed in storm trooper violence, with unidentified armed masked men invading communities and workplaces and seizing people with no legal justification. And it is seen in government actions that punish opponents and provide billions of dollars of benefits to supporters.

A movement-based opposition to the MAGA assault on society is growing. It is developing in the electoral system, as illustrated by the rise of Zohran Mamdani. It is developing in the streets, for example the massive nonviolent direct action to protect immigrant neighborhoods from ICE attacks and the five million people who turned out for No Kings Day. This opposition, if it continues to grow, may undermine MAGA power and ultimately remove Trump and his associates from office.

But what about a worst-case scenario where neither electoral nor non-electoral opposition forestalls a MAGA tyranny? Where democratic procedures and the right to vote have been so denied that it is impossible to defeat MAGA at the polls? Where both official and vigilante violence are unrestrained by law? Where a substantial part of the population has been bamboozled by lies and distraction? Where all dissent has been effectively branded as treason? Where those who don’t go along with the program are subject to harassment, beating, jailing, and death? And where much of the population has been driven by fear into silence and acquiescence? How is it possible to resist the MAGA juggernaut under such conditions?

Tyrannical regimes from Serbia to the Philippines to Brazil and many other places have been brought down by “people power” — nonviolent revolts that made society ungovernable and led to regime change. While the U.S. has a tradition of social and labor movements using mass action and local general strikes, it does not have a tradition of using people power for the defense of democracy. However, in other countries where democratic institutions have been so weakened or eliminated that they are unable to halt tyranny, such methods have emerged and been used effectively. They go by such names as “nonviolent uprisings,” “people power,” general strikes, and, as I will call them here, “social strikes.”

Social strike is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of activities that use the withdrawal of cooperation and mass disruption to affect governments and social structures. In many countries where democratic institutions have been so weakened or eliminated that they are unable to disempower tyranny, such methods have been used effectively.

I use the term “social strikes” to describe mass actions that exercise power by withdrawing cooperation from and disrupting the operation of society. The goal of a social strike is to affect not just the immediate employer, but a political regime or social structure. Such forms of mass direct action provide a possible alternative when institutional means of action prove ineffective. In all their varied forms they are based on Gandhi’s fundamental perception that “even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.”

This commentary presents examples of social strikes that have defeated coups or eliminated authoritarian regimes in other countries.

South Korea: “Our citizens, armed with nothing but conviction . . .”

 

 

President Trump has been engaging in executive usurpation, aka a “creeping coup.” If at some point his power is threatened, it is entirely plausible that he will turn to a full-scale coup. The capacity of a social strike to defeat such a coup is illustrated by events last year in South Korea, a country with 40 years of firmly established democracy.

Late in 2024, rightwing president Yoon Suk-Yeol, facing plunging popularity, went on live TV and declared martial law. Yoon alleged that the Democratic Party, which had a majority in the National Assembly, was conducting “anti-state activities” and collaborating with “North Korean communists” to destroy South Korea. His martial law order prohibited political activities, including gatherings of the National Assembly and local legislatures, and suspended freedom of the press. Yoon reportedly ordered the arrest of various political opponents, including the leaders of the Democratic Party and his own Peoples Power Party.

Soldiers appeared at the parliament and attempted to arrest MPs. Workers, students, and ordinary people flooded the streets and rushed to Parliament where they faced martial law troops and broke through the military blockade. The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and the Korean Public Service and Transport Workers’ Union declared a general strike. A series of strike rallies called for Yoon’s resignation and “Beyond Yoon” union demands of just working conditions and public policies to ensure quality public services for all Koreans. Railroad workers, subway workers, metalworkers, and other trade unionists announced they would join the strike. After the military blockade of parliament was broken, the National Assembly was able to vote and blocked the Martial Law order 190 to 0. After six hours, faced with near-universal condemnation, President Yoon rescinded the martial law order. A statement by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions said,

Our citizens, armed with nothing but conviction, rushed to Parliament and stood against the martial law troops. Through sheer determination, they broke through the blockade, enabling Parliament to lift the martial law. Once again, it was our citizens who protected democracy.

When Yoon refused to step down and his party refused to allow him to be impeached, hundreds of thousands of Koreans continued to demonstrate daily for a week. As 200,000 people marched outside, the parliament finally voted to impeach him. The crowd erupted in celebration as the result was announced. Young South Koreans danced, sang, exchanged hugs and waved K-pop light sticks, which had quickly become a symbol of resistance. Yoon was immediately suspended. This was followed by a half year of turmoil in which Yoon was eventually impeached and the opposition voted into office.

Trump has already sent the Marines into Los Angeles and sent the National Guard to occupy Washington, DC. His minions have arrested Senators, Representatives, judges, and mayors. It would be entirely in character with his longstanding behavior to “discover” a trumped-up conspiracy and use it as a pretext for seizing still more power. Defeating such a coup might require – and might call forth – the kind of social strike that restored democracy to South Korea.

Serbia: Otpor

 

 

After the 2019 election, President Trump attempted to retain the presidency by trying to falsify the results. Fortunately, the forces defending democracy were powerful enough to defeat his effort. The defeat of dictatorship in Serbia in 2000 illustrates how a social strike could be used to protect an election and thereby terminate an autocracy.

In 1988, despite the circumvention of electoral laws, repression of universities, restriction of media, and ethnic cleansing, Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic was still holding elections of a sort. An activist group called Otpor formed around the goal of driving Milosevic from power. It initiated hundreds of small actions of resistance around the country to counter pervasive fear of the regime. Its plan was that activists would compel the regime to call elections; they would create massive turnout around a united opposition candidate; they would join other nongovernmental organizations in carefully monitoring election results so they could document their victory; and they would use mass noncompliance – leading up to a general strike – if and when Milosevic refused to step down.

In 2000, Otpor pushed 18 of Serbia’s squabbling opposition parties to form a coalition to support a unity candidate, promising to deliver 500,000 votes to the unity candidate but threatening to put 100,000 protesters at the door of any politician who betrayed the coalition. As elections approached, the regime called Otpor an “illegal terrorist organization”; police raided its offices and shut down independent radio and TV stations; each day an average of seven activists were arrested.

Meanwhile, the opposition organized ten thousand election monitors. After the election they announced exit polls showing Milosevic had been defeated by a 50% to 35% margin. Instead of accepting the results, Milosevic refused to leave office and demanded a run-off election.

Otpor announced a deadline for Milosevic to concede and 200,000 people demonstrated in Belgrade. The opposition called on the population throughout the country to “perform any acts of civil disobedience they have at their disposal.” Miners struck; TV and radio stations opened their airwaves to opposition voices. As the deadline approached, cars and trucks filled the highways heading toward Belgrade. Police put up roadblocks and were issued orders to shoot, but seeing the size of the convoys they abandoned their barricades. Half-a-million people gathered in Belgrade. Police fired tear gas, but when the crowd stood its ground riot police began running away or joining the crowd. The opposition candidate declared victory and Milosevic accepted his defeat.  (For a detailed account of Otpor and the defeat of Milosevic, see Mark Engler and Paul Engler, This Is an Uprising, 2016).

Philippines: People power

 

 

Dictators often use fraudulent elections to establish or maintain their power. The means to do so range from denial of voting rights, to arresting or disqualifying opposition candidates, to trumped-up conspiracies, to armed terrorism. A classic case was the election called in 1986 by Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos – and its defeat by a revolt of almost the whole of society.

After the assassination of opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 1983, Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos met growing protests. Marcos called a presidential election for February 1986. Aquino’s widow Corazon Aquino was backed by all major opposition parties. Marcos’ campaign included vote-buying and the murder of more than 70 opposition workers. On election day casting of fake ballots and falsification of returns were widely witnessed.

Marcos claimed victory, but Mrs. Aquino met with opposition leaders and proposed a long nonviolent campaign of what she dubbed “people power.” Top military officers resigned, withdrew support from Marcos, recognized Aquino as the legitimate winner, and fled to military camps in Manila. The leader of the city’s Roman Catholic Church appealed on nationwide radio for people to nonviolently protect the officers and prevent bloodshed. By midnight 50,000 people surrounded the camps; two days later it was more than a million. Marcos ordered tanks and armored transports to attack. Nuns knelt in front of the tanks and priests climbed on them and led a million protesters – plus soldiers – in prayer. The troops turned back. Next day Marcos ordered another assault, but the commanding officer ordered his troops to return to their base. The military rebels announced that ninety percent of the Armed Forces had defected. Large crowds took over the government television station. The next day Marcos fled the country and Aquino was inaugurated president. Ever since, mass nonviolent direct action has been known around the world as “People power.”

Marcos’ “electoral coup” indicates the level of violence and repression that an autocrat may use in order to perpetuate their power. His opponents’ mobilization of people power shows the possibility of overcoming even such massive repression.

Puerto Rico: Rickyleaks

 

 

Social strikes may also be triggered by behavior by those in power that outrages the people and violates widely shared norms. Consider the 2019 “People’s Impeachment” of the governor of Puerto Rico.

On July 13, 2019 a Puerto Rican public interest group, Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (Center for Investigative Journalism), released more than eight hundred pages of online chats between Governor Ricardo Rosselló and eleven of his closest cronies. The chat group members attacked and belittled disabled people, fat people, and gays, including Puerto Rican actor, writer, and pop star Ricky Martin. They made jokes about those who had died from Hurricane Maria. And they revealed corruption and toleration of corruption. Governor Rosselló criticized the Puerto Rican former speaker of the New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, saying, “Our people” should “beat up that whore.” When the island’s chief fiscal officer wrote that he was ‘salivating to shoot’ the mayor of San Juan, Rosselló replied: ‘You’d be doing me a grand favor.”

Dubbed “RickyLeaks,” the revelations caused an instant public outcry. Almost immediately Puerto Ricans began protesting outside the governor’s mansion calling for Rosselló to resign. #RickyRenuncia (#RickyResign) became an instant hashtag and slogan. Protesters were described as including “unionists, students, socialist groups, unemployed youth, rainbow flag-waving queer and transgender folks, people with disabilities, and elders.” Also spotlighted at marches were a committed group of radical feminists, Colectiva Feminista en Construcción, who had long been clamoring for Rosselló to acknowledge that there was a crisis of violence against women in Puerto Rico.

For three days the crowds swelled. They were overwhelmingly peaceful, but a few plastic bottles and other objects were thrown at the police—possibly by agents provocateurs. Eventually police began arresting protesters and attacking them with tear gas and rubber bullets. That further incited popular outrage.

Major newspapers and leading political figures from all parties joined the call for the governor’s resignation. At eight every evening people throughout the island banged pots and pans from their balconies, windows, and streets in a traditional Latin American cacerolazo. The day after the first massive Monday march, three women went to the Department of Motor Vehicles office in a municipality of San Juan and removed the governor’s portrait from the wall in protest, setting off a series of copycat takedowns in other governmental offices around the island.

Meanwhile, the crowds outside the governor’s mansion continued to grow larger every day. Early on the morning of July 23, people from across the island boarded trains and cars bound for the capitol. Schools shut down, San Juan’s largest mall shut down, and banks stayed closed in what was widely referred to as a general strike. A march shut down miles of the Las Américas highway. Protesters at the governor’s mansion performed mass yoga and read aloud the 889 pages of chats. Eventually an estimated half million people demonstrated for the governor’s ouster. One-third of the entire population of Puerto Rico participated in the movement.

Facing what appeared a nonviolent insurrection of virtually the entire Puerto Rican people and a threat of impeachment by the legislature, just before midnight Rosselló posted a resignation message on Facebook. Celebrations across San Juan lasted all night. Rosselló was deposed as governor less than two weeks after RickyLeaks became public. These events became known as the “People’s Impeachment.” (For more on Puerto Rico’s “People’s Impeachment,” ‘see Jeremy Brecher, Strike!: 50th Anniversary Edition.)

These examples illustrate the possibility of using social strikes to defeat authoritarian regimes and outrageous behavior by those in power. They also indicate that there is no off-the-shelf model for social strikes. The conditions that give rise to them are varied, although they usually include severe repression and growing popular discontent. Social strikes grow out of extreme grievances and deep anger at the regime. Sudden “trigger events” may kick them off.  (See Mark Engler and Paul Engler, This Is an Uprising for a discussion of “trigger events”) While preparation can be helpful, sensitivity to the state of current popular feeling is also crucial.

In subsequent commentaries in this series, I will discuss the history of social strikes in the United States and how they might be used to overcome Trump’s increasingly authoritarian regime.