| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
190022
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the interplay between nonviolent movements’ use of polarizing issues for mobilization and pro-regime countermobilization. Thailand has been chosen as an explanatory case study because it has a history of political polarization and pro-regime mass mobilization. I focus on polarizing frames that were incorporated into the 2020 nonviolent resistance campaigns, which addressed a taboo subject in the country: the monarchy. In response, the regime applied various forms of repression, including the mobilization of royalists. But the assumption that the regime single-handedly mobilized countermovements is only half of the story. Autonomous elements within countermovements also joined forces when there were sufficient social conditions. By juxtaposing protest event data with an analysis of mobilizing frames (through movements’ Twitter hashtags), I shed light on a two-pronged process that underpins the nexus between framing choice and countermobilization: (a) how a movement’s choice for polarizing frames sustains existing ideological and identity-based cleavages, antagonizing segments of society that perceive their collective identity to be under siege and; (b) how these ideological and identity-based cleavages also provide social sources for countermobilization. I conclude by addressing some implications of this framing choice–countermobilization nexus on repression dynamics and suggest how we can rethink the relationship between strategic framing and nonviolent resistance campaigns in divided societies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
171079
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the Hong Kong regime’s mechanisms of countermobilization as a reaction to and preemptive strike against dissent. It reveals how united front work historically rooted in Chinese Communist Party apparatuses has penetrated into Hong Kong. The PRC’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong government have established a hierarchical yet dispersed platform to combine repression with outsourced contention. Hong Kong’s regime demonstrates its resilience in how it and the Liaison Office’s united front apparatus recruit nonstate actors to constrain opposition from below through both carrots and sticks. More broadly, the article unpacks how the regime’s mechanisms of patronage, counterprotest, attrition, and stigmatization operate. While these regime repertoires have curtailed organized resistance during some periods, they have also eroded the regime’s legitimacy, exposing it to the re-eruption of protests. The article concludes by assessing how the pro-government united front alliance was utilized during the unprecedented summer of dissent in 2019 over a proposed extradition law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|