Historical Background and Debates

For decades, scholars have debated and analyzed the role of mobilization in democratization. Barrington Moore’s [Reference Moore1966] seminal work emphasized that the path to parliamentary democracy often involved bourgeois revolutions, drawing on comparative case studies of Britain, the French Revolution, and the American Civil War. According to this political-economy model, democratic institutions emerged where the balance of power favored the bourgeoisie over the landed elite. However, this perspective focused primarily on the structural drivers of these revolutions, putting less emphasis on the mobilization processes that occurred during democratic revolutions.

Scholarly interest in popular mobilization and democratization grew with the onset of the third wave of democracy in the mid-1970s, beginning in Southern Europe and later spreading to South America. In contrast to the political economy approach that focused on conditions before democratic revolutions, the new scholarly attention focused on political elite interaction during democratic transitions, defined as the time between the breakdown of authoritarian regimes and the establishment of democratic institutions, often signified by a constituting election. In the 1980s, transitologists emphasized the role of political elites in initiating and managing transitions, identifying key divisions between hardliners and soft-liners within authoritarian regimes and moderates and radicals within opposition movements. The success of democratic transitions, they argued, depended on negotiations and cooperation among these four groups. Pact-based transitions were particularly praised for ensuring the stability of emerging political regimes. While this literature acknowledged the critical role of civil society mobilization in supporting transitions after elite splits and negotiations, transitologists warned that mass mobilization could threaten these processes. Excessive pressure from mass movements, they cautioned, might alienate pivotal elites and lead them to undermine the transition [Huntington Reference Huntington1984; O’Donnell and Schmitter Reference O’Donnell and Schmitter1986]. Reflecting their pessimism about contentious mobilization, these studies largely overlooked the processes and dynamics of mobilization itself.

Recent scholarship continues to emphasize the role of incumbent elites in achieving stable democratization. Miller [Reference Miller2021] argues that lasting, high-quality democracies often result from “electoral continuity,” in which strong ruling parties democratize, anticipating electoral dominance. This process involves minimal concessions from elites, reducing their incentive to stage coups and creating a stable environment for democratic institutions to gradually take root. Similarly, Riedl et al. [Reference Riedl Rachel, Slater, Wong and Ziblatt2020] describe “authoritarian-led democratization,” and Slater and Wong [Reference Slater and Wong2022] call it “democratization through strength.” These transitions involve authoritarian elites democratizing without losing power, with incremental reforms under pressure eventually solidifying and making democratization stable.

As the wave of democratization expanded into Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa in the late 1980s and 1990s, the earlier pessimism surrounding mass mobilization was challenged. A new wave of scholarship emerged, shedding light on the leading role played by mass mobilization in eroding authoritarian regimes and propelling democratic transitions. This scholarship emphasized that mass mobilization not only did not harm transition processes, but rather it significantly enhanced their chances of success, even in transitions initially described as elite-driven by transitologists [Bermeo Reference Bermeo1997; Bratton and Van de Walle Reference Bratton and Van de Walle1992, Reference Bratton and Van de Walle1997; Collier Reference Collier Ruth1999; Wood Reference Wood Elisabeth2001, Reference Wood Elisabeth2003].

While earlier analyses were reliant largely on single or comparative case studies, the availability of cross-national data on protests and civic campaigns led to a series of quantitative analyses. These studies documented the positive impact of protest mobilization on democratic transitions. Utilizing various data sources on protests and democracy indices, these studies revealed that the likelihood of a successful democratic transition increased significantly during periods of high rates of mass mobilization, in comparison with times of relative calm [Alemán and Yang Reference Alemán and Yang2011; Kadivar and Caren Reference Kadivar and Caren2016; Teorell Reference Teorell2010].

Why therefore has mass mobilization emerged as a driving force for democratization? For one thing, within the context of authoritarian regimes, mass mobilization serves as a potent source of critical information regarding the public’s grievances and their aspirations for the form of government they desire. Authoritarian regimes, often employing censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech, endeavor to portray their rule as legitimate and widely supported. They attempt to signal to potential dissidents and disgruntled citizens that their discontent is isolated, and that others will not join in voicing their grievances. Episodes of mass mobilization, however, send signals to the public, the incumbents, and the opposition that discontent is widespread in society and that citizens are willing to take action to press for their demands [Kuran Reference Kuran1991, Reference Kuran1995].

Mass mobilization also escalates the costs of repression, which is another linchpin of authoritarian survival, alongside censorship. Despite their restrictions on public participation, authoritarian regimes frequently claim to represent the people and work in their interest [Frantz Reference Frantz2018; Kendall-Taylor, Lindstaedt, and Frantz Reference Kendall-Taylor, Lindstaedt and Frantz2020]. However, such rhetoric is undermined when confronted with mobilized protests, and the repression of protestors further diminishes their claims of legitimacy and representation.

Furthermore, mass mobilization can create schisms within the incumbent elite, as authoritarian leaders may differ in their views on whether to employ repression or make concessions. These internal divisions further erode support for the authoritarian regime and encourage defection within the ruling coalition, which is yet another pillar of authoritarian strength and stability.

Tactics

More recent scholarship has paid particular attention to the actors, tactics, and organizations involved in mobilization episodes that contribute to democratizing outcomes. In terms of tactics, a significant distinction is drawn between violent and nonviolent tactics [Nepstad Reference Nepstad Sharon2011; Schock Reference Schock2005]. Scholars of nonviolent resistance argue that nonviolent campaigns, in general, have a higher chance of success and an even greater chance of promoting democracy. This is because nonviolent tactics necessitate the participation of a large number of individuals and are accessible to a broader cross-section of the population. Crackdowns on nonviolent protestors are also costlier for governments, and nonviolent resistance often has a better chance of garnering support and solidarity from third parties and international audiences [Celestino and Gleditsch Reference Celestino Mauricio and Gleditsch2013; Chenoweth Reference Chenoweth2021; Chenoweth and Stephan Reference Chenoweth and Stephan2011; Stephan and Chenoweth Reference Stephan and Chenoweth2008].

In recent years, subsequent analyses have prompted a reevaluation of whether the distinction between violence and nonviolence or, more accurately, armed and unarmed tactics, remains a valid framework. It has become apparent that civilians often resort to violent yet unarmed tactics, such as scuffling with the police, throwing objects, or causing property damage. An examination of unarmed violence in the context of democratization suggests that these tactics are relatively common during democratic transitions. There is evidence to suggest that such tactics do not undermine the progress of democratic transitions but can, under certain conditions, enhance the likelihood of successful democratization outcomes [Kadivar and Ketchley Reference Kadivar and Ketchley2018]. Additionally, research highlights disparities in the accessibility and effectiveness of nonviolent tactics for ethnic majorities and minorities, with excluded ethnic groups being labeled as violent even when employing nonviolent methods [Manekin and Mitts Reference Manekin and Mitts2022]. Furthermore, an experimental study in the context of Hong Kong reveals that while respondents view violent tactics as morally unacceptable, they hesitate to condemn them publicly, indicating that movements can maintain cohesion even when employing nonviolent yet forceful strategies [Yuen Reference Yuen2023].

This area remains ripe for further research. We have gained insights into the different consequences of armed versus unarmed tactics, but questions remain regarding the varying effects of unarmed violent tactics compared with peaceful protest tactics. This includes their short-term and long-term impacts, their influence on the internal dynamics of movements, and their interactions with governments and third parties.

Organizations

Scholars have also delved into the types of organizations that have played pivotal roles in pro-democracy mobilization episodes. Foremost among these are workers’ unions, which have been extensively highlighted in studies of democratizing episodes rooted in the political-economy tradition. Labor unions, which are among the largest civil society organizations, maintain direct connections with the everyday needs and demands of ordinary citizens. They possess a familiarity with conflict and compromise, two facets of politics. Workers’ unions have, at different times, had to employ both contentious tactics, such as strikes, and accommodative tactics, such as negotiations. These skills are crucial for the democratic opposition during mobilization episodes. Comparative historical analysis and time-series statistical analyses have documented the positive role of trade unions in democratization processes [Collier Reference Collier Ruth1999; Dahlum, Knutsen, and Wig Reference Dahlum, Knutsen and Wig2019; Kadivar Reference Kadivar2022; Lee Reference Lee2012; Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens Reference Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens1992; Usmani Reference Usmani2018].

However, key questions remain regarding the effectiveness of labor unions as vehicles for democratic mobilization, particularly in the Global South. A significant challenge in these regions is the prevalence of informal labor, which often falls outside the scope of unionized action, limiting the organizational power of unions compared with their counterparts in the Global North. Additionally, even in cases in which organized labor has demonstrated organizational effectiveness, their commitment to democracy is not guaranteed. While unions have frequently supported democratization, there are notable instances, such as in Tunisia, where they have remained passive or even complicit in authoritarian resurgence. This raises the critical question of what factors determine whether workers’ unions support, oppose, or remain neutral in the context of democracy mobilization?

While much attention has focused on the challenges unions face in countries with large informal sectors, comparative historical research shows that industrial unions have nonetheless played central roles in democratic transitions. In Brazil and South Africa, labor movements helped build broad pro-democracy coalitions that linked demands for political rights to social justice. In Poland and South Korea, strong industrial unions provided the organizational infrastructure and strategic leadership necessary to sustain opposition to authoritarian regimes [Ekiert and Kubik Reference Ekiert and Kubik1999; Lee Reference Lee2016; Seidman Reference Seidman1994]. These cases underscore the importance of examining how labor movements build cross-class alliances and frame democratization as both a political and economic transformation.

In addition to labor unions, professional associations have been found to play constructive roles in democratizing episodes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Communities of faith have also proven to be significant agents in mobilizing pro-democracy movements [Pinckney, Butcher, and Braithwaite Reference Pinckney, Butcher and Braithwaite2022]. However, for communities of faith to assume a pro-democracy role, they must have developed a theology compatible with democracy and have achieved financial and institutional independence from the state [Philpott Reference Philpott2007; Toft, Philpott, and Shah Reference Toft Monica, Philpott and Shah2011]. A comparative historical analysis of democratic revolutions in southeast Asia also shows that such revolutions have emerged and succeeded in countries in which they have been supported by the communal elite, a group possessing nationalist and religious credentials [Slater Reference Slater2009]. Comparative historical analyses demonstrate the prominent role played by political parties in organizing pro-democracy campaigns [Haggard and Kaufman Reference Haggard and Kaufman2016], although the democratic commitment of political parties has been questioned in other studies [Pinckney, Butcher and Braithwaite Reference Pinckney, Butcher and Braithwaite2022]. Similar questions can be raised about the action or inaction of major social organizations within a country during mobilization episodes. Understanding why certain organizations align themselves with democracy movements while others remain silent or side with the state is very important.

Finally, university campuses have always been a hotbed for protest movements, especially pro-democracy mobilization. When authoritarian regimes suppress civil society organizations, university campuses can emerge as a free space or indigenous organization for mobilization. The structure of campuses often facilitates coordination. Students have time and motivation to mobilize, and they often promote the values of democracy and human rights [Dahlum and Wig Reference Dahlum and Wig2021]. Furthermore, when students participate in a campaign it tends to stay nonviolent [Dahlum Reference Dahlum2018].

Social Groups and Democratization

The role of social class in democratization has been a central focus of debate, reflecting the deep embedding of organizations within broader social structures. Barrington Moore’s [Reference Moore1966] early scholarship posited the bourgeoisie as the primary driver of democratization. In contrast, later comparative historical analyses by Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens [Reference Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens1992] identified the working class as the most consistent force behind democratization, particularly in Europe and Latin America, a finding corroborated by subsequent comparative and cross-national studies [Dahlum, Knutsen and Wig Reference Dahlum, Knutsen and Wig2019; Usmani Reference Usmani2018].

During the third wave of democratization, some scholars emphasized the middle class’s significant role in advancing democracy [Huntington Reference Huntington1993]. Others examined the contributions of intellectuals and the educated class, particularly in early 20th-century democratization waves and transitions from communist rule in Eastern Europe [Kurzman and Leahey Reference Kurzman and Leahey2004; Kurzman Reference Kurzman and Leahey2008]. Similarly, students have served as key actors in opposition movements over the past several decades, frequently framing their protests around themes of democracy and human rights [Dahlum Reference Dahlum2018; Dahlum and Wig Reference Dahlum and Wig2021].

Survey data from recent revolutions in Ukraine, Egypt, and Tunisia reveal that individuals from middle class backgrounds participated at higher rates than other groups [Beissinger Reference Beissinger2022]. Additionally, intra-class differences within the middle class have been explored. A study of democracy protests in Russia found that middle-class individuals employed by the state were less likely to participate in anti-regime protests than those working in the private sector. This disparity is attributed to the incentives and penalties the state offers its employees [Rosenfeld Reference Rosenfeld2017].

Other studies have examined the role of women in mobilization and democratic transitions, highlighting their impact on post-transition political landscapes. Research indicates that transitions driven by contentious mobilization tend to result in higher representation for women in government. Additionally, when women actively participate in pro-democracy coalitions, the policies of the new regime are more likely to be favorable towards gender equality [Fallon, Swiss and Viterna Reference Fallon, Swiss and Viterna2012; Viterna and Fallon Reference Viterna and Fallon2008]. A comparative analysis of the Arab Spring uprisings underscores this dynamic, showing that the active presence of women in the Tunisian revolution played a crucial role in its success, distinguishing it from other uprisings in the region. Women’s involvement not only strengthened democratic demands but also contributed to more inclusive and durable democratic outcomes [Mako and Moghadam Reference Mako and Moghadam2021]. Research on the Egyptian uprising similarly shows how women’s engagement in the 2011 revolution expanded democratic imaginaries and transformed political subjectivities, even as post-revolutionary developments failed to institutionalize gender-inclusive reforms [Allam Reference Allam2018].

Building on these findings, another analysis suggests that democratic transitions rooted in unarmed mobilization are more likely to foster inclusive democracies that better represent marginalized groups. Specifically, when women, ethnically marginalized communities, and excluded social classes play a significant role in mobilization, the resulting democratic regime is more likely to reflect greater inclusivity along gender, ethnic, and class lines [Bogati et al. Reference Bogati, Firawati, Pinckney and Thurber2024].

This enhanced attention to a broader range of actors beyond the traditional working class reflects a wider shift in the study of democratization. Scholars increasingly emphasize the role of “everyday struggles” among marginalized and excluded groups as central to democratic transformation. In Latin America, for example, grassroots mobilizations emerging from poor urban communities, Indigenous groups, rural peasants, and environmental defenders are now seen as key drivers of democratic change. These movements may not always operate through formal political channels, but they may reshape democratic practices by advancing demands rooted in lived experience, local knowledge, and cultural identity [Almeida and Cordero Ulate Reference Almeida, Ulate, Almeida and Ulate2015].

These findings are in line with broader theoretical and empirical work on new social movements, which emphasize that democratic struggles are often grounded not only in class but also in gender, ethnicity, and other axes of identity. In Latin America, for example, social movements rooted in these struggles have redefined democratic politics by centering autonomy, cultural identity, and local knowledge. Rather than focusing solely on class-based mobilization, these movements have challenged dominant development paradigms and expanded the meaning of democratic participation to include subaltern voices and epistemologies [Escobar and Alvarez Reference Arturo and Alvarez1992].

Beyond analyzing the role of specific social groups, scholars have also examined multi-sectoral coalitions in anti-authoritarian campaigns. Cross-national research suggests that movements composed of broad-based coalitions—spanning different classes and social sectors—have had a higher likelihood of toppling authoritarian regimes and leading to either short-term or long-term democratization [Dahlum Reference Dahlum2023].

Mobilization in Repressive Contexts

In repressive authoritarian regimes, mobilization often occurs without relying on traditional organizational structures. Activists in such contexts employ alternative mechanisms to compensate for the lack of formal organizations. One strategy is social appropriation, which involves repurposing organizations not originally intended for contentious mobilization, such as labor unions, communities of faith, or professional associations, for mobilizational purposes [Tilly and Tarrow Reference Tilly and Tarrow2015]. Another strategy is to leverage focal points, temporal contexts that naturally stimulate collective action even without direct communication. Events such as Friday prayers, religious or national holidays, or funerals can serve as focal points, facilitating mobilization when conventional organizational resources are unavailable [Ketchley and Barrie Reference Ketchley and Barrie2020; Opp and Gern Reference Opp and Gern1993].

Another key strategy involves maintaining distance—both spatially and symbolically—from state institutions and formal political arenas. This distance can become a source of power, enabling activists to operate beneath the radar of repression and forge new solidarities in peripheral or ambiguous spaces. Evidence from Latin America shows how such distancing, rather than weakening movements, can strengthen their resilience and allow new forms of organization and identity to emerge [Davis Reference Davis1999].

Mobilization can also generate its own organizational structures, as ongoing contention fosters increasingly sophisticated forms of organization. New vehicles of organization may emerge that bypass established relationships, creating fresh social ties and unique forms of sociability. Activists often rely on micro-solidarities, utilizing technology, spontaneity, and transnational influences to sustain their efforts. Grassroots coordination units, functioning as trust networks, covertly connect neighborhood activists and provide a foundation for collective action. However, the challenges of repression frequently compel activists to disengage from existing networks. At the same time, contention can transform social dynamics, fostering cooperation and mutual respect among advocates of peaceful revolution [Pearlman Reference Pearlman2021].

Digital Media

While historically traditional organizations such as unions and professional associations have structured mobilization, in recent decades activists have increasingly turned to digital media to coordinate collective action across space and time. Digital media has introduced new capabilities and vulnerabilities to pro-democracy mobilization. With the aid of digital media, like-minded individuals can connect without needing to be in the same physical location. Organizing tasks that traditionally were carried out by conventional social movement organizations, such as coordination, communication, and logistical preparations, can now be executed by a small group of activists located in different places. The affordances of social media have enabled activists to quickly mobilize large waves of pro-democracy supporters in a short timeframe [Clarke and Koçak Reference Clarke and Koçak2018; Earl and Kimport Reference Earl and Kimport2011; Kadivar Reference Kadivar2022; Tufekci Reference Tufekci2017]. This phenomenon is particularly evident in what Mark Beissinger [Reference Beissinger2022] terms “urban-civic revolutions.” In these revolutions, people employ civic tactics to gather large crowds in public spaces, uniting against despotic and corrupt autocratic governments. Prime examples of such uprisings include the Arab Spring and the revolutions in former Soviet republics, such as the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine.

While activists have demonstrated their ability to mobilize masses rapidly through social media, they have often faltered in maintaining coalitions and establishing consensus within the movement regarding strategy, leadership, and discourse. The nature of digital media tends to elevate individuals to de facto leadership positions, as those who can produce popular content on digital platforms take center stage. However, the skills required to craft engaging online posts differ from those necessary for effective leadership of social movements. As studies of leadership and strategic capacity demonstrate, effective leadership demands diversity, familiarity with various forms of contention, the ability to bridge divides and unite different factions within a movement, strategic vision, and the capacity to lead concrete actions on the ground [Ganz Reference Ganz, Goodwin and Jasper2004, Reference Ganz, Nohira and Khurana2010; Kadivar Reference Kadivar2022; Tufekci Reference Tufekci2017].

The coalitions formed during urban-civic revolutions, often described as “negative coalitions,” have proven to be fragile, built primarily on opposition to incumbent governments rather than on consensus on substantive issues [Beissinger Reference Beissinger2013]. Consequently, once these revolutions succeed in ousting incumbent leaders, they often descend into bitter disputes and disagreements about what should come next. These movements, which rely heavily on digital media, find their fragility exacerbated by certain features of digital platforms. Inflammatory and polarized posts tend to receive the most attention on digital media, while attempts to adopt a middle ground are met with online attacks and abuse from both sides [Beissinger Reference Beissinger2017; Tufekci Reference Tufekci2017].

Nevertheless, digital media is not inherently ill-suited for the tasks of organizing and building coalitions. It is still a valuable tool for these purposes. However, communication for the purpose of organizing and coalition-building may need to take place through private conversations between activists that remain hidden from public view [Han Reference Han2014]. Future research has the potential to shed more light on how digital media can be employed effectively in creating leadership and organizational capabilities and for uniting coalitions.

Another evolving dynamic in the relationship between digital media and mobilization is the increasing use of digital connectivity by political regimes as a tool for social and political control. Advances in communication technologies have often acted as double-edged swords. While these technologies empower activists and dissidents to overcome coordination challenges in innovative ways, they simultaneously enable incumbent governments to develop and deploy new methods of surveillance and control [Weidmann and Rød Reference Weidmann and Rød2019].

Scholars have explored how activists adapt their use of digital media for coordination in response to evolving state surveillance and repression. Initially, digital media was employed to share information about the time and location of protests, but governments quickly learned how to exploit this same information to impose more effective crackdowns. A study of the Sudanese revolution illustrates a tactical innovation in response to this dynamic: local activists organized simultaneous protests adjacent to the main protest sites. This strategy diverted state repression away from central demonstrations or safeguarded smaller protests from crackdowns concentrated at primary locations [Hassan Reference Hassan2024].

Elections

Elections have proved to be a significant catalyst for democracy mobilization [Trejo Reference Trejo2014]. During election periods, there is a heightened sharing of information, and emotions run high. A specific form of democracy mobilization has emerged in response to fraudulent elections, which are a common feature of electoral authoritarian regimes. Electoral authoritarian regimes are a subtype of non-democratic regimes that conduct elections that fall short of being free and fair. These regimes often manipulate rules in their favor, utilize state resources for electoral advantage, curtail freedom of speech and assembly to undermine their opponents, and resort to electoral fraud if deemed necessary [Levitsky and Way Reference Levitsky and Way2010; Schedler Reference Schedler2013]. In such regimes, election periods provide a window of opportunity that facilitates mobilization against the incumbent authorities. During elections, a wealth of information is disseminated, often signaling the extent of government corruption and widespread grievances in society. This influx of information, coupled with heightened emotional states, paves the way for mobilization when voters become incensed over alleged electoral fraud [Beaulieu Reference Beaulieu2014; Kadivar Reference Kadivar Mohammad2017; Kuntz and Thompson Reference Kuntz and Thompson2009; Pop-Eleches and Robertson Reference Pop-Eleches and Robertson2015].

The Economic Context of Mobilization

The economic context also plays a pivotal role in shaping the prospects for democracy mobilization. A cross-national analysis of democracy protests indicates that democracy mobilization is more likely to occur during economic downturns rather than during periods of economic prosperity. When citizens are content with the state of the economy, they are less inclined to participate in such mobilization. Furthermore, even during economic downturns, democracy mobilization is more likely when citizens hold the government responsible for the economic challenges they face. Additionally, during election periods, citizens are more prone to attribute economic poor performance to the government, further increasing the likelihood of democracy mobilization [Brancati Reference Brancati2016].

Another important aspect of the economic context of mobilization is the effects of revenues from natural resources. The rentier state theory posits that the presence of significant oil revenues can hinder the prospects of democracy in these nations. This is because oil-rich states are less reliant on taxing their citizens, opting instead to utilize oil revenues to expand welfare programs, establish clientelist networks, and develop strong repressive apparatuses [Ross Reference Ross2001, Reference Ross2012]. Empirical research has demonstrated that oil-producing countries tend to have lower rates of protest mobilization [Kadivar and Caren Reference Kadivar and Caren2016; Smith Reference Smith2004]. However, it’s noteworthy that democracy mobilization has emerged nevertheless in some oil-rich states such as Indonesia and Nigeria. To advance our understanding, future research should delve into how activists have managed to mobilize in these oil-rich contexts despite the challenges and limitations outlined by the literature.

Democratic Diffusion

Democracy mobilization has often occurred in waves, with instances clustered in both time and geographic proximity [Brinks and Coppedge Reference Brinks and Coppedge2006; Bunce and Wolchik Reference Bunce and Wolchik2011; Gleditsch and Rivera Reference Gleditsch and Rivera2015; Weyland Reference Weyland2010, Reference Weyland2014]. The success of mobilization in one place has inspired people in other areas to mobilize for democracy against autocratic leaders. When such mobilization leads to the removal of incumbent elites and democratic breakthroughs, the demonstration effect is even more pronounced [Kadivar and Caren Reference Kadivar and Caren2016]. This power of example has enabled democracy mobilization in contexts that might not initially have seemed favorable for such action [Beissinger Reference Beissinger2007]. However, its impact varies from country to country, and nations with a rich tradition of democracy mobilization may be less influenced by demonstration effects, while they have a stronger effect on countries with a weaker history of mobilization [Braithwaite, Braithwaite, and Kucik Reference Braithwaite, Braithwaite and Kucik2015]. Nevertheless, this perspective on the diffusion of democracy mobilization faces challenges from some scholars, who argue that these protests are driven primarily by domestic processes and are often unaffected by similar actions in other countries in terms of diffusion [Brancati and Lucardi Reference Brancati and Lucardi2019].

Long-term Effects of Mobilization

Alongside the short-term effects of contention on democratization, a growing body of research examines its long-term consequences for democratic consolidation and growth. This scholarship emphasizes that the mode of transition—particularly the level and position of social movement participation—shapes the quality of the resulting regimes [della Porta Reference Della Porta2016]. Cross-national analyses show that transitions rooted in bottom-up mobilization tend to yield more enduring democracies [Bethke and Pinckney Reference Bethke and Pinckney2021; Haggard and Kaufman Reference Haggard and Kaufman2016; Lambach et al. Reference Lambach, Bayer, Bethke, Dressler and Dudouet2020]. Extended periods of unarmed mobilization further increase the likelihood of democratic survival by fostering organizational infrastructures, forging broad coalitions, and cultivating civic leadership that sustains civil society after transition. These pro-democracy organizations enhance pluralism in the post-transition period, while contentious repertoires developed during mobilization often inspire citizens to continue holding leaders accountable [Kadivar Reference Kadivar Mohammad2018, Reference Kadivar2022]. Evidence from Africa illustrates this dynamic: when citizens perceive voting as ineffective, they turn to protest to voice grievances about worsening economic conditions [Harris and Hern Reference Harris and Hern2019].

Besides contributing to democratic durability and consolidation, activism and mobilization have also played a central role in deepening democracy. Democratic depth refers to processes through which citizens participate in collective decision-making beyond elections and the formal mechanisms of representative politics. In this regard, the mobilization of civil society actors has been crucial for establishing institutions that enable bottom-up participation and for expanding the boundaries of democratic inclusion [Fishman Reference Fishman Robert2016, Reference Fishman Robert2019; Fung and Wright Reference Fung and Wright2003; Heller Reference Heller2019]. In Latin America, for example, popular movements have often served as generative spaces of political learning and institutional experimentation. Rather than being episodic or reactive, these movements have shaped the quality of democratic governance by embedding civic agendas and actors into state structures [Inclán Reference Inclán2008]. One of the key institutional innovations that emerged from these efforts is participatory democracy, which has developed as a response to the limits of representative institutions, particularly in contexts in which electoral systems are captured by elites or distorted by clientelism.

Across much of the Global South, popular movements and civil society organizations have demanded new channels for ongoing citizen participation. These demands have led to the institutionalization of participatory budgeting, local councils, and deliberative planning forums, allowing marginalized groups to influence public policy and resource allocation. Unlike technocratic or consultative models, participatory institutions that have had the greatest impact are often rooted in prior mobilization and supported by dense networks of association that can articulate collective demands and ensure accountability. While these initiatives vary in effectiveness, research shows they are most likely to democratize governance when civil society is autonomous, political parties are responsive, and state bureaucracies are open to reform [Avritzer Reference Avritzer2002; Baiocchi, Heller, and Silva Reference Baiocchi, Heller and Silva2011; Wampler Reference Wampler2015]. In these cases, participation not only enhances state accountability and redistribution but also contributes to the formation of active, empowered citizens.

Recent research on civil society in the Global South highlights three key dimensions of its role in democratization: enhancing associational capabilities, nurturing civic identities, and promoting organizational autonomy. Civil society provides spaces for marginalized actors to develop political agency, fosters solidarity-based identities that cultivate democratic norms, and influences whether movements emphasize broad, inclusive interests or narrower, exclusive ones. Two critical conditions support these processes: a strong rights-based culture that challenges existing hierarchies and the development of horizontal ties among civil society actors before the formation of political parties [Heller Reference Heller2022].

Empirical research further suggests that democracies emerging from extended periods of unarmed mobilization are more likely to institutionalize participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian democratic practices. Brazil serves as an illustrative case: movements that resisted military dictatorship later spearheaded policies that expanded citizen participation beyond electoral processes. Additionally, the entry of democracy activists into state bureaucracy played a crucial role in resisting attempts at democratic backsliding [Avritzer Reference Avritzer2006; Bradlow and Kadivar Reference Bradlow and Kadivar2023; Gianpaolo Reference Gianpaolo2003; Kadivar, Usmani, and Bradlow Reference Kadivar, Usmani and Bradlow2020]. Similar dynamics can be observed in Europe, where mobilizations during the austerity era experimented with assemblies, horizontal networks, and mutual aid, creating alternative democratic practices in response to legitimacy crises and weakened representative institutions [Della Porta Reference Della Porta2015]. These findings underscore the long-term impact of mobilization in shaping not only democratic transitions but also the depth and resilience of democratic governance.

Sociological research has particularly documented how activists have used the emerging institutional openings within democratic regimes to expand practices of citizenship. In the Global South, civil society has functioned not only as a space of resistance but also as a key arena for building political agency and inclusive participation. Marginalized actors, including women and racialized communities, have used legal institutions, informal associations, and self-help groups to claim rights and contest dominant power structures. These associational spaces help to generate new forms of citizenship and foster solidaristic identities through practices of mutual recognition and collective claim-making. The democratic impact of civil society depends in part on its autonomy and its ability to build horizontal alliances and generate shared norms of inclusion [Fraser Reference Fraser, Giroux and McLaren2021; Paschel [2016] Reference Paschel2018; Roychowdhury Reference Roychowdhury2020; Sanyal Reference Sanyal2014].

Building on this understanding of civil society, recent research has emphasized how class-based mobilization—particularly among workers—has shaped both the trajectory and substance of democratization. Informal and precarious workers, especially women, have advanced political claims around dignity and livelihood, often organizing outside the bounds of traditional labor unions. In contexts such as Brazil and South Africa, labor movements embedded in broader social struggles have helped to push authoritarian regimes toward democratic openings. Historical and comparative research highlights how coalitions between workers, rural laborers, and opposition parties have been central to both democratic transitions and the formation of more participatory and redistributive institutions [Agarwala Reference Agarwala Professor2013; Desai Reference Desai2002; Sandbrook et al. Reference Sandbrook, Edelman, Heller and Teichman2007; Seidman Reference Seidman1994].

Extending the link between mobilization and democratic substance, a growing body of scholarship shows how developmental outcomes—especially in health, welfare, and urban governance—are shaped by contentious politics. Social movements and professional networks have played key roles in expanding access to public services and institutionalizing pro-poor policies, often through strategic alliances with reformist bureaucrats. In Brazil, the health movement was instrumental in reshaping municipal governance and embedding universal health-care commitments into the state. In South Africa and Brazil, urban movements have directly influenced how state institutions are built and restructured, often pushing for participatory planning, redistributive urban policies, and more inclusive governance frameworks. In Indian urban slums, informal leaders and neighborhood associations have been central to negotiating access to basic services, illustrating how state responsiveness is shaped by local power structures. These studies show that inclusive development outcomes often emerge not from technocratic reform alone but from political struggles rooted in local mobilization [Auerbach Reference Auerbach Adam2019; Bradlow Reference Bradlow2024; Gibson Reference Gibson2019; Harris Reference Harris2017].

Discourses of Mobilization

Another pertinent aspect of mobilization and democratization concerns the ideological and discursive content of contentious episodes. Several cross-national studies that highlight the positive effects of mobilization for democracy often do not consider the depth of democratic commitment within these episodes. This issue has gained prominence in recent years, as in various cases, actors who initially championed democracy did not maintain their commitment to democratic causes over the long term.

In Egypt, for instance, activists who initially played a pivotal role in toppling Mubarak later organized protests against democratically elected President Muhammad Morsi, with the hope that the military would intervene and remove Morsi from power. Subsequently, a coup followed these protests, putting an end to Egypt’s brief democratic experiment. In his comprehensive analysis of revolutionary episodes in the 20th and 21st centuries, Mark Beissinger [Reference Beissinger2022] suggests that many of these revolutionary episodes against authoritarian regimes might be described more accurately as anti-autocracy mobilizations rather than as pro-democracy movements, as democratic commitments in these episodes are often weak. Another analysis of democracy protests also indicates that in most cases participants do not share a thorough philosophical understanding of democracy, but rather demand the change of an incumbent leader or a higher standard of living [Brancati Reference Brancati2016].

A case study of the Tunisian uprising further complicates this picture, showing that democratic content does not always define initial mobilization. Instead, as new social actors with a stronger commitment to democracy join the movement, democratic ideals can emerge over time [Barrie 2023]. These findings suggest that the impact of mobilization on democratization depends not only on mass participation but also on the ideological and discursive evolution of movements.

A recent study of democratic commitment employed new indicators from the V-Dem dataset that distinguish between mobilizations for democracy and against autocracy. Similar to other data in the V-Dem dataset, this information is based on coding by numerous experts from various countries. Cross-national analysis of this data confirms that mobilization for democracy has indeed had positive effects on democratic transitions and enhancements [Hellmeier and Bernhard Reference Hellmeier and Bernhard2023].

Mobilization and Democratic Decline

As several studies and historical cases illustrate, mobilization for democracy does not always advance democratization and, under certain conditions, can contribute to democratic breakdown or backsliding [Bermeo Reference Bermeo2016]. An influential analysis of civil resistance and democratization suggests that maximalist demands—such as denying electoral outcomes or demanding the immediate resignation of elected governments—can distort civil resistance campaigns and undermine democratic transitions. This approach argues that the relationship between mass mobilization and democratization depends on the degree of maximalism involved. High mobilization with low maximalism tends to support democratic breakthroughs, while high maximalism, especially when combined with high mobilization, often leads to fragmented, unstable political systems. In extreme cases, such dynamics can accelerate the transition to autocratic rule [Pinckney Reference Pinckney2020].

By contrast, other scholars argue that the problem lies not in excessive demands, but in the absence of a radical democratic vision and the constriction of revolutionary horizons within neoliberal frameworks. Asef Bayat [Reference Bayat2017] contends that the Arab uprisings represented “revolutions without revolutionaries”—mass mobilizations that lacked ideological direction, organizational infrastructure, and a transformative political project. In this view, the failure of these revolutions stems not from overreach, but from their reformist limits, as they failed to challenge deeper structures of inequality and authoritarianism. Similarly, Atef Said [Reference Said Atef2023] highlights how the Egyptian revolution was symbolically and politically “squared”—reduced to a confined space (Tahrir) and narrow procedural goals, while more expansive demands for social justice and participatory democracy were sidelined. For these scholars, the tragedy of the uprisings lies in their demobilization and depoliticization, not in their maximalism. They suggest that it was precisely the absence of sustained, organized, and visionary mobilization that allowed counterrevolutionary forces to reclaim power.

On the other hand, there are studies that caution against the potential negative role of civil society and mobilization in the context of democratization. A classic study of the democratic collapse in the Weimar Republic documents the active role of civil society organizations in the rise of fascism in interwar Germany. This occurred because political parties, which constitute political society, failed to represent the societal demands of civic organizations, which were later co-opted and directed by the Nazis [Berman Reference Berman1997a, Reference Berman1997b]. Similarly, analyses of fascism in Italy and Spain also articulate that in both societies it had its roots in strong civic organizations with antidemocratic ideologies [Riley Reference Riley2005, Reference Riley2010].

Recent uprisings have also been the subject of studies that highlight negative effects on mobilization. For instance, an analysis of the protests in post-Mubarak Egypt indicates that they had detrimental effects on the perception of democracy among residents in protesting districts [Ketchley and El-Rayyes Reference Ketchley and El-Rayyes2020]. Another analysis reveals that respondents from these districts voted in higher numbers for the main candidate of the former regime in the 2012 elections [El-Mallakh Reference El-Mallakh2020]. These studies demonstrate that when pro-democracy mobilization lacks organization and strategy, it can backfire and lead citizens to turn against democratic values. Consequently, many Egyptians became more concerned about order and security, prompting them to vote for the candidate of the previous authoritarian regime, which promised to restore stability and order.

Contentious collective action within democracies is often associated with democratic advancement, but recent research has shown that protest can also serve authoritarian trajectories, either deliberately or inadvertently. In countries such as Brazil, India, and Ukraine, antipartisan protest waves have destabilized party systems, delegitimized representative institutions, and opened the door to authoritarian populists who position themselves as alternatives to the discredited political establishment. In Brazil, mass protests between 2013 and 2016 began as broad-based demands for better public services and accountability, but gradually became dominated by anti-PT sentiment, eventually aligning with conservative and antidemocratic actors. Despite rejecting formal political affiliation, these movements played a pivotal role in delegitimizing the political left, paving the way for the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff and the eventual rise of Jair Bolsonaro [Bradlow and Gold Reference Bradlow and Gold2025]. These examples illustrate how protest—while often framed as democratic engagement,—can function as a vehicle for elite realignment and political projects that erode democratic norms.

While the broader literature on populism has focused predominantly on electoral dynamics and voter realignment, several studies within this tradition also shed light on non-electoral mobilization that supports authoritarian outcomes. Research on Brazil, Argentina, and the Philippines has shown how conservative civil society networks, evangelical churches, and digitally coordinated movements have engaged in contentious action that delegitimizes liberal democracy and promotes exclusionary governance [McKenna Reference McKenna2020; Gold and Peña Reference Gold and Peña2021; Curato Reference Curato2017]. These findings suggest that democratic backsliding is often not only top-down but also driven by grassroots mobilization, shaped by civil society actors and moral populist discourse.

Directions for Future Research

The review highlights several promising avenues for future research in the field of mobilization for and against democracy. One critical area for exploration is the tactics of mobilization, with a particular focus on understanding the consequences of unarmed violence and its interactions with peaceful strategies. Scholars can delve into the short-term and long-term effects of such tactics on movement cohesion, public perception, interactions with governments and repressive forces, and subsequent levels of violence within societies.

Another significant area of inquiry revolves around the role of various social organizations in democracy mobilization. While the existing literature has shed light on the positive contributions of organizations such as worker unions, professional associations, faith communities, ethnonationalist groups, and political parties, there remains a need to investigate the conditions under which these organizations support or oppose democracy. Understanding why organizations may shift their stance over time, from supporting democracy to enabling democratic backsliding or breakdown, is a pertinent question. Additionally, researchers can explore how authoritarian regimes and leaders build or co-opt organizations to advance antidemocratic mobilization.

Given the current global challenges to democratic discourse, studying the democratic vision of different mobilizations becomes crucial. Exploring differences in democratic discourses between successful and defeated democracy mobilizations, as well as analyzing how opponents of democracy articulate their views within antidemocratic discourse, offers valuable insights. Examining the rhetorical and discursive strategies used to convey values such as popular sovereignty within authoritarian contexts is also a pertinent area of investigation.

The composition of alliances supporting or opposing democracy mobilization is another area ripe for research. Understanding the challenges of building democratic alliances in the 21st century, particularly in multiethnic societies, can shed light on effective strategies for uniting diverse groups in broad multisectoral coalitions. Nativism, often employed by the far right in antidemocratic mobilization, presents a unique challenge. Researchers can explore how democracy advocates can facilitate defection within antidemocratic alliances without succumbing to nativist narratives.

Another important avenue for future research concerns how we make sense of variation across subnational findings and move towards a more systematic understanding of mobilization’s democratic or antidemocratic consequences. Rather than treating subnational comparison as a new solution, scholars should take stock of the accumulated body of subnational, small-n, and experimental research and interrogate the sources of divergence across these studies. This calls for multi-level research designs that systematically compare subnational episodes of contention, either across time within the same country or across similar spatial units in different national contexts. For example, researchers could investigate why certain cities or provinces emerge as centers of democratic contention while others enable authoritarian consolidation, tracing how these dynamics are related to local variations in mobilizing structures, state capacity, or elite alignments. Such designs would allow scholars to identify recurring patterns of conjunction and contingency across cases while also discerning the structural and institutional logics that aggregate up from subnational arenas. As O’Donnell [Reference O’Donnell1993] argued in his work on “brown areas” in Latin America, democratization is often territorially uneven. Recognizing and theorizing this unevenness is essential not only for understanding how democracy unfolds within national borders but also for building comparative insights across contexts.

This review has demonstrated that collective mobilization is a central force shaping both democratic openings and authoritarian entrenchment. Far from having a uniformly positive or negative effect, its impact is contingent on the nature of its demands, organizational foundations, class composition, and interaction with political institutions. Mobilization has been shown to enable transitions to democracy, deepen participatory practices, and empower marginalized groups; but it has also contributed to democratic backsliding when channeled toward maximalist, exclusionary, or authoritarian ends. The literature increasingly recognizes that both pro- and anti-democratic mobilizations can be mass-based, well-organized, and capable of shaping political regimes in lasting ways. Understanding these divergent pathways requires continued attention to variation in tactics, coalition dynamics, ideological content, and state response. Future research should deepen the study of how contentious politics is conditioned by social structure and spatial inequality, and explore how movement actors navigate the tensions between reformist inclusion and transformative rupture. As democratic institutions face mounting challenges globally, clarifying the ambivalent political consequences of mobilization is not only an analytical task but a pressing political one.