That contention broadly differs across the cases should by now be reasonably clear. This chapter endeavors to set forth the dimension and logic of those differences in more explicit terms. First, however, consider for a moment the significance of that variation for the study of protest. I hope in part to be demonstrating that one cannot characterize contention in these cases merely by how they differ from baseline cases in the industrial world, better represented in social movements theory: since the set does not hold together as similar examples of “third-world” or even “Southeast Asian” contention, it confounds efforts to concentrate merely on the variables that distinguish first- and third-world cases (i.e. levels of development, democracy or state capacity). Instead, the cases demonstrate the central importance of how interactions between states and societies create an institutional, political and cultural terrain that shapes subsequent contention.

To broadly restate these differences: In Burma, years of quiet were punctuated by massive protest that invariably began with widespread economic dislocation, moved to more coordinated struggle and ended with radicalized protests and state violence. During each upsurge, demonstrations grew more organized as the ferment produced new leaders, and underground activists emerged from hiding to play stronger roles. Apart from these demonstrations, ethnic and communist insurgencies consistently engaged state forces, but seldom coordinated with urban protest movements. In Indonesia, protest occurred more frequently, and with less necessarily dire consequences.