The No Kings protests, an anti-authoritarian movement, are set to draw millions in their third iteration. This movement, formally launched in June to combat the Trump administration's policies, has grown rapidly, with an estimated 7 million participants in its second mass protest in October. Organizers expect Saturday's events to surpass this, making it the largest protest in American history. However, the movement's leaderless nature and broad cause have sparked debates among social movement experts and observers.
The No Kings movement was conceived as a "container" to hold the collective outrage of millions with various grievances. It emerged from a period of "elite collapse," where law firms negotiated with the Trump administration, universities capitulated to Trump's demands, and media companies fell silent. The movement's amorphous nature has allowed it to adapt to various issues, from mass firings of federal workers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and environmental protection rollbacks. This flexibility is seen as a strength, enabling the movement to address a wide range of concerns.
One of the key features of No Kings is its leaderless structure. When prominent progressive organizations joined forces, they intentionally designed a decentralized movement, avoiding a leadership hierarchy. This approach, according to organizers, is a direct repudiation of the Trump administration and a declaration of intent to return power to the people. However, this lack of centralized leadership raises strategic questions. Political scientist Hahrie Han suggests that while resistance movements don't need charismatic figureheads, they do require mechanisms for collective decision-making and representation.
The Montgomery bus boycott of the 1950s is cited as a successful example of combining top-down and bottom-up governance. The movement created economic leverage, but it took 381 days and significant leadership, including Martin Luther King Jr. and the Montgomery Improvement Association, to negotiate and achieve change. In contrast, the Occupy Wall Street movement, which lacked a credible negotiator, failed to achieve structural change. Black Lives Matter, on the other hand, built local leadership and used it to contest elections and change local laws.
Critics argue that No Kings' lack of a policy platform is a flaw, suggesting it lacks real demands. However, Marcus Board Jr., a political scientist, challenges this view, arguing that the standard for judging movements should be broader. The success of No Kings, according to Leah Greenberg, is measured by the number of people who continue to engage and organize after the initial protest. The movement's impact is seen in the follow-up meetings and the ability to address specific neighborhood issues, indicating a shift towards local empowerment and sustained activism.
