Power in Specific Movement

How Power Is Exercised by the Social Movement

This KK requires applying the general analysis of power in social movements to your specific chosen movement. You must identify the particular forms of power your movement exercised and explain how these contributed to (or limited) its effectiveness.

This note uses the Australian Marriage Equality Movement as the worked example.

KEY TAKEAWAY: The marriage equality movement’s success was built on a sophisticated multi-front power strategy: broad numerical mobilisation, moral/persuasive power, business and institutional endorsement, and expert legal and political strategy. This combination ultimately outweighed the opposition’s ability to maintain the status quo.

Forms of Power Exercised by the Marriage Equality Movement

1. Numerical/Mobilisation Power

• Annual marches: Sydney Mardi Gras and equality marches in all capital cities drew tens of thousands of participants annually — demonstrating consistent, visible public support
• The postal survey Yes campaign: The movement transformed the postal survey into a mobilisation event — thousands of volunteers door-knocked, made calls, and registered voters; 79.5% turnout in the survey demonstrated massive civic engagement
• Petition power: Online petitions regularly gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures, demonstrating to politicians the breadth of public support
• 61.6% Yes vote: The postal survey result was the most concrete demonstration of numerical power — a clear majority of Australians supported marriage equality

2. Persuasive/Moral Power

• Personal stories: LGBTQ+ Australians sharing their experiences of exclusion and discrimination were central to the “Yes” campaign; humanising the issue was crucial to winning over undecided voters
• “I Do” and similar campaigns: public declarations of support from couples, families, and allies
• Reframing the issue: Successful campaigns shifted public framing from “controversial social engineering” to “fairness,” “love,” and “equal rights” — moral frameworks with broad appeal
• Celebrity and artistic support: Musicians, athletes, actors, and cultural figures publicly endorsed the Yes campaign, amplifying its cultural legitimacy

3. Business and Institutional Power

• A distinctive feature of the marriage equality movement’s later stage was the alignment of major business organisations:
• Over 1,000 businesses signed open letters supporting marriage equality
• Qantas CEO Alan Joyce was a prominent Yes advocate (himself gay)
• ANZ, Atlassian, Google, and dozens of other major corporations publicly backed the movement
• This economic and institutional endorsement shifted the issue from a “special interest” cause to a mainstream social concern

4. Legal and Political Power

• Parliamentary allies: Dedicated Labor, Greens, and ultimately some Liberal and Nationals politicians advocated for marriage equality within Parliament
• Legal challenges: Challenges to discriminatory provisions; use of anti-discrimination law to maintain pressure
• International precedent: Pointing to successful marriage equality in the US, UK, Ireland, New Zealand, and Canada demonstrated that reform was feasible and that Australian exceptionalism was indefensible

5. Coalition Power

• Alliance with diverse communities: Indigenous LGBTQ+ groups, religious progressives, disability advocates
• Intergenerational coalition: young people’s overwhelming support (polling showed 90%+ support among under-30s) created forward momentum
• International solidarity: global LGBTQ+ movement provided resources, tactics, and moral support

VCAA FOCUS: Identify at least three different forms of power and provide specific, named examples of each. Generic descriptions (“the movement used protests and media”) will not earn high marks — name specific campaigns, events, organisations, and individuals.

APPLICATION: Connect the movement’s use of power to Chenoweth’s framework: the marriage equality movement demonstrated nonviolence, breadth of participation (well exceeding 3.5% during the postal survey), and loyalty shifts among business leaders and moderate conservative politicians — all features Chenoweth identifies as characteristic of successful nonviolent campaigns.