Contesting the Repressive State offers a fresh perspective on a much-debated question in the study of collective action and social movements: why do some people engage in protests under a repressive regime while others do not? Drawing on interviews with both protesters and non-protesters in Egypt, Jumet's rich study sheds light on a crucial period in Egyptian politics (2011–13) while adding important theoretical insights to the literatures on collective action and social movements. Jumet's overarching argument is that emotional mechanisms are important in illuminating the link between structural considerations and the decision to engage in protest.
Throughout the book, Jumet offers several theoretical innovations in response to longstanding debates about the relationship between regime response and subsequent mobilization. She adds important nuance to the claim that repression can fuel further protest through moral outrage. Even in cases where citizens are outraged at government violence, she argues, their response hinges on whether they empathize with protesters and whether they view government violence as unjust. Jumet also contributes valuable insight to the vexing debate concerning the effects of concessions on mobilization. She insightfully points out that existing studies tend to assume that protesters perceive concessions as such. Instead, she argues that scholars need to account for situations where protesters perceive government concessions as too superficial. In such cases, concessions are seen not as a sign of weakness but as “a further affront to protesters and their demands” (p. 144).
Jumet also usefully challenges the binary distinction that protesters can only understand the regime as either “weak” or “strong” (p. 123). This binary overlooks the nuanced assessment that protesters’ make with regards to whether the regime may be challenged. This implies that there are cases where the regime may be strong but nonetheless perceived as “challengeable” (Ibid.).
Jumet also contributes novel insights to ongoing debates regarding the role of social media in fueling protest. Positioning her work in relation to Timur Kuran's concepts of “preference falsification” and “revolutionary thresholds.” Jumet challenges yet another classical binary—namely that of private and public preferences, arguing that social media platforms offer an intermediary step—that of “online preference.” Citizens can express their views openly without having to engage in risky political action, such as attending meetings or participating in protests. This insight allows us to capture the opportunities that social media platforms afford citizens in authoritarian regimes. In addition, Jumet's research reveals that Facebook played a number of functions in facilitating protest around Egypt's 2011 uprising: It informed people about the time and location of protest. It allowed for reflection on the success of Tunisia's revolution. It, also, signaled not only how many people were likely to protest but also who was likely to participate.
In sum, Jumet's account enriches our understanding of the complex causal mechanisms that link online activism and participation in protest. At the same time, it raises important questions for future research. These include the extent to which “online preference” should be seen as an intermediary step between “private” and “public” preferences in cases where authoritarian regimes closely monitor and regulate the Internet and social media platforms. In contexts where social media accounts are closely monitored or even created by authoritarian regimes, it is unclear how reliable online preferences are as an indication of citizens’ views. In addition, it would be worthwhile to explicitly examine Internet penetration levels in our analyses of the role of social media in fueling protest. Overall, then, Contesting the Repressive State is a valuable addition to the literature on social movements and will be widely appealing to students of authoritarianism and contentious politics in Egypt and beyond.
