Deliberative protests? Persuading politicians not to close schools in Swedish municipalities

Abstract

Studies on the political impact of protest mobilization sometimes show that disruptive protests help social movements achieve their goals. This is conventionally explained by politicians’ interests in re-elections and social control, ultimately neglecting alternative arguments such as the drive for better policy solutions. This study investigates if well-reasoned arguments – measured by the deliberative quality of protest letters against school closures – persuade Swedish municipal decision-makers more than simple outcries. Analysis demonstrates support for this argument, as schools defended by protest letters with a higher deliberative quality have higher probability to remain open than schools defended by letters of a lower deliberative quality. However, a fundamental paradox rises from the second conclusion: intrinsically non-deliberate forms of protests, such as demonstrations, have a stronger negative effect on the likelihood of school closures. Hence, well-reasoned communicative practices have some power of persuasion, but experienced activists may prefer disruptive protests for more political leverage.