A Double-Edge Sword? Mass Media and Nonviolent Dissent in Autocracies

• Author: Kristian Skrede Gleditsch,Martín Macías-Medellín,Mauricio Rivera
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221080921
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023

Article

Political Research Quarterly

2023, Vol. 76(1) 224–238

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129221080921

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

A Double-Edge Sword? Mass Media and

Nonviolent Dissent in Autocracies

Kristian Skrede Gleditsch

1

, Mart´

ın Mac´

ıas-Medell´

ın

2

, and

Mauricio Rivera

3



Abstract

It is often assumed that nondemocratic regimes will control mass media and suppress independent information, but in

many autocracies the media are partially free and imperfectly controlled. We argue that partial media freedom can

increase the prospects for mass nonviolent dissent. We develop a theory emphasizing how even less than perfectly free

media outlets can increase the ability of individuals to coordinate and mobilize, and provide an informational endowment

that can help non-state actors overcome collective mobilization barriers. We further argue that this informational

endowment amplifies the effect of other influences spurring mass protests in autocracies, in particular protest contagion

and elections. We find empirical support for our argument in an analysis of all autocracies between 1955 and 2013. A case

study of the Georgian Rose revolution provides further support for the postulated mechanisms.

Keywords

autocracies, media freedom, protest, dissent, collective action

Introduction

Government respect for media freedom is a hallmark of

democracy, and access to independent information allows

citizens to hold a government to account. Much research

assumes that non-democracies will suppress or control

mass media to prevent any information that may promote

populargrievances and anti-regime mobilization(e.g., Dahl

1989;Linz and Stepan 1996;Poe and Tate 1994). But

although some autocracies such as Cuba and North Korea

fit this popular image, many non-democracies have a more

varied and less directly controlled media landscape. As

Egorov, Guriev, and Sonin (2009, 646) put it, “there is

much variation in media freedom even among dictatorial

regimes,”and “many dictatorships have partially free

media”(see also Whitten-Woodring 2009;Stier 2015).

Existing research highlights how dictators may allow

partially free media as this can help increase control over

the bureaucracy, improve governance, or to help legiti-

mate the regime (e.g., Egorov, Guriev, and Sonin 2009;

O’Donnell and Schmitter 1986). We shift attention to the

effects of mass media by arguing that printed/broadcast

media outlets are a double-edged sword, and partially free

media can facilitate mass dissent in autocracies. Our point

of departure is that collective action is difficult in au-

tocracies due to the lack of information about the nature

and capacity of the incumbent regime, the strength of the

opposition, and the feasibility of different mobilization

strategies. Partial media freedom provides a coordination

good, enhancing the ability of dissidents to organize and

overcome collective action barriers. We further argue that

the informational advantage that potential dissidents have

under even imperfectly free media can play an important

role in amplifying the effect of other factors that make

mass dissent more likely, in particular protest contagion

and the mobilizing effects of elections.

Weexamine data for all autocraciesover the 1955–2013

period.

1

Our analysis showsthat mass nonviolent dissent is

more likely in countries with more media freedom and

where there are alternative sources of information, com-

pared to regimes where no independent media exist. We

also find that partial media freedom amplifies the effect of

protest contagion, although we fail to find evidence that

1

Department of Government, University of Essex & Peace Research

Institute Oslo, Colchester, UK

2

Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,

USA

3

Peace Research Institute Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Corresponding Author:

Mauricio Rivera, Conditions of Violence and Peace, Peace Research

Institute Oslo, PO Box 9229, Grønland, Oslo, NO 0134, Norway.

Email: mauriv@prio.org