Hunger strikes take on a different meaning depending on whether they occur in the context of parliamentary democracy or an authoritarian regime, whether they follow urban guerrilla warfare or a sit-in, and whether they take place in prison or in a church. Their political environment is not only a question of the geopolitical opportunity structure, the presence of a state that is ‘strong’ or ‘weak’; it also involves the relationship with the media and other protest groups. It is necessary to define it in relation to other protest techniques. As historian Charles Tilly put it when he connected protest to the modes of coercion and domination in a given society, we need to analyse its status within the ‘repertoire of collective action’.

Hunger strike, political regimes and the state

In spite of the diversity of contexts, it is possible that this protest technique is related to forms of state domination. Could hunger strikes be the modus operandi of the weak, those oppressed by majorities – even democratic ones? This proposal is both true and insufficient. Threatening to let oneself die requires that at the very least the threat be taken seriously, and thus that equality and respect are considered fundamental values. But it also requires the existence of a ‘public opinion’ in the country, or overseas, that can appeal against the state.

Faced with the state, public opinion and humanity

For Tilly modernisation, the extension of capitalism and the growth of the state have shifted the centres of power and modified forms of collective action. Protest has shifted from communities and the local level to the national level. Public opinion has become a central principle of legitimacy. This combination of factors has encouraged the use of hunger strikes directly targeting the state, whether to demand particular statuses or rights, or to oblige non-state actors to apply them.

Hunger strikes are associated with the ‘psychological habitus’ of the nation-state, because they function on a broad network of interdependences. Even if there are no direct connections between us, we cannot let a fellow citizen die. It is ‘public opinion’ that weaves these formerly unimaginable connections.