This is part of a series on nonviolent protest methods, which explains approaches and provides inspirational examples from history. For additional resources, please explore the Museum of Protest’s activist guides and view items in the collection.

In this protest tactic, shopkeepers and business owners collectively refuse to open their businesses as a form of protest.

A merchants’ general strike means stores shutter their doors en masse to put pressure on an authority or policy. This approach has been used in various movements – from anti-colonial struggles to pro-democracy campaigns – to nonviolently apply economic and social pressure.

The goal of this article is to explain how a merchants’ strike works, what conditions make it most effective, and to examine historical examples where it made a clear difference in the outcome of a protest movement.

It can deprive the ruling regime (or targeted authority) of revenue, disrupt daily life, and visibly demonstrate widespread opposition. When streets are lined with closed storefronts and marketplaces are eerily empty, it sends a strong message that the community is united in protest.

How the Merchants’ Strike Exerts Pressure

A well-executed merchants’ strike can put significant pressure on its target (for example, a government or occupying power). Here’s how this tactic exerts influence in a nonviolent resistance movement:

Economic Impact: When most shops and businesses in an area close, economic activity grinds to a halt. This can starve the government of taxes and revenue from sales. It may also disrupt supply chains and services, creating economic leverage for the protesters. Authorities may face budget shortfalls or economic stagnation if the strike endures for long, which incentivizes them to address the protesters’ grievances.

Public Disruption: A merchants’ strike is highly visible. Empty markets and closed stores are impossible to ignore, both for the local population and for outside observers. This visibility can draw media attention and public sympathy. It dramatizes the protest by showing a normally busy commercial area completely silent – a sign of how deep the opposition runs. The inconvenience to daily life, while temporarily difficult for the public, can also rally ordinary people to the cause if they understand and support the reasons behind the strike.

Unified Front: Because shop owners must act together for this tactic to work, a successful merchants’ strike demonstrates unity and coordination among the business community. It shows that an entire sector – not just isolated individuals – is willing to sacrifice income to support the movement. This unity can inspire other groups (workers, students, professionals) to join or continue their own forms of protest, increasing overall solidarity.

Moral and Psychological Pressure: Nonviolent tactics gain strength from moral authority. Peacefully closing one’s shop as a protest is a way to withdraw consent and cooperation from an unjust system without engaging in violence. This can erode the legitimacy of the authority being protested. For example, if even apolitical shopkeepers feel compelled to strike, it signals that the opposition’s cause transcends partisan lines and reflects a broad social consensus.

Strategic Conditions for Success

Not every merchants’ strike automatically succeeds; certain conditions make this tactic more effective. Historical cases show that the following factors are often critical:

Broad Coordination: The strike should be widely observed by merchants across neighborhoods or even nationwide, not just a few shops. High participation rates maximize impact. Merchants often coordinate through trade associations, unions, or informal networks to agree on strike days and terms. Unity is key – if many shops stay open, the strike’s impact and symbolic unity are weakened.

Economic Leverage: This tactic works best when the businesses involved are economically significant to the target. For example, if bazaar merchants or market traders form the backbone of local commerce, their strike has clout. The more the economy relies on the striking merchants’ trade, the more leverage they have. In some cases, merchants’ strikes have coincided with worker strikes to create an even greater effect. When business owners strike alongside workers, it can lead to an economic shutdown that paralyzes nearly all economic activity. Such comprehensive shutdowns greatly intensify pressure on those in power.

Public Support and Understanding: Striking merchants temporarily deprive the public of goods and services. For the action to maintain goodwill, it’s important that the general public supports the reasons for the strike. Effective movements often educate people beforehand about why shops will be closed, framing it as a necessary sacrifice for a greater good (such as freedom or justice). When the public is supportive, they are less likely to resent the inconvenience and more likely to join the cause.

Timing and Triggers: Choosing the right moment matters. Merchants’ strikes are often triggered by a specific incident or policy that galvanizes outrage – for instance, a violent crackdown, an unjust law, or a call from respected leaders. Timing the strike to coincide with other protests or symbolic dates can heighten its impact. The duration can vary; some merchants’ strikes last a day as a symbolic gesture, while others continue indefinitely until demands are met. A common strategy is to start with a short strike and escalate to longer closures if the authority fails to respond.

Safety and Solidarity: Merchants who close their shops in defiance of authority may face threats such as fines, arrest, or forcible closures by police. A successful strike requires courage and mutual support. Sometimes protest organizers arrange volunteer security or legal aid for merchants, or negotiate understandings that strikers will not be individually punished. Solidarity – knowing that one is not acting alone – helps participants stay committed despite risks.

Media and Visibility: Publicizing the strike, both domestically and internationally, can amplify pressure. If images of shuttered markets and empty shopping districts spread in the media, it embarrasses the regime or target group, showing that their governance is openly rejected by key segments of society. High visibility also invites diplomatic and public inquiries into why the strike is happening, which can further pressure the regime to address the underlying issues.

By mindfully organizing around these conditions, nonviolent movements increase the chances that a merchants’ general strike will prompt concessions rather than fizzle out. Next, we will look at several historical examples where merchants’ strikes were used effectively under such conditions.

Notable Historical Examples

Syria 1936: Forcing French Negotiations

When and where: In January 1936, during the French Mandate over Syria, Syrian nationalists launched a countrywide general strike that prominently included merchants and marketplaces. It lasted for about 50 days.

Trigger: Tensions had been building under colonial rule. The immediate trigger was the French authorities’ repression of Syrian political leaders and refusal to allow greater self-governance. In early 1936, after the French arrested nationalist leaders and shut down a political office, the National Bloc (the leading independence coalition) called for a general strike.

How it was carried out: Virtually all shops and businesses closed in Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, and other cities. Merchants pulled down their shutters in solidarity with students, workers, and civil servants who also struck. Transportation halted and government revenues plunged as Syrians refused to participate in the economy under French control. Despite harsh measures by the authorities – including martial law and arrests – the strike held firm for weeks. The sight of empty bazaars and idle workshops across Syria showed the French that the entire society backed the demands for independence.

Outcomes: The economic paralysis and public pressure were so intense that France was compelled to come to the negotiating table. By March 1936, the French government agreed to talks with Syrian nationalist leaders. The strike officially ended on March 6, 1936, once negotiations were secured. Later that year, a Franco-Syrian Independence Treaty was drafted, effectively acknowledging Syria’s right to self-rule (though it took until after World War II for full independence to be realized). The 1936 merchants’ strike is remembered for paralyzing the country for two months and forcing France to negotiate Syrian independence. It demonstrated the power of unified nonviolent action by an entire society – with merchants playing a key role – against a colonial authority.

Iran 1978–79: Bazaar Strikes and the Shah’s Downfall

When and where: During the Iranian Revolution of 1978–1979, especially in the latter half of 1978, Iran’s traditional merchants – the bazaaris – engaged in repeated strikes in major cities like Tehran, Tabriz, Qom, and others. These occurred in the broader context of nationwide protests against the Shah’s authoritarian rule.

Trigger: Iran’s bazaar merchants were upset by various policies of the Shah’s regime, including aggressive anti-inflation measures that targeted traders as “profiteers” and the general repression of dissent. In the fall of 1978, as demonstrations against the monarchy grew, the bazaaris began closing their shops in protest. One catalyst was the regime’s crackdown on inflation, which involved prosecuting merchants for high prices – this backfired as merchants responded with organized market closures. Additionally, the killing of protestors by the Shah’s security forces prompted bazaar strikes as a form of mourning and protest.

How it was carried out: Iran’s commercial heart – the bazaars – went quiet. Nationwide bazaar closures spread from city to city. Merchants in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, for instance, shuttered their stalls for days and then weeks. These merchant actions often synchronized with oil workers’ strikes and other labor stoppages, culminating in a broad general strike by late 1978. The combined effect brought Iran’s economy to a standstill. The bazaar strikes were encouraged by religious leaders (the clergy and Ayatollah Khomeini’s network), who had a traditional alliance with the merchants. Merchants also provided financial support to the resistance, sustaining protesters and strikes over many months. The image of closed shops and silent bazaars signaled that even the commercial class – once a pillar of support for the regime – had turned against the Shah.

Outcomes: The merchants’ strike significantly weakened the Shah’s grip. As historians note, the wave of strikes in late 1978 – including the bazaar shutdowns – was decisive in crippling the regime’s economy and legitimacy. By January 1979, the cumulative pressure of protests and economic noncooperation forced the Shah to flee the country. The revolution ultimately succeeded in toppling the monarchy. The bazaaris’ role was pivotal: their general strike not only applied economic pressure but also lent moral weight to the movement. It showed that opposition to the Shah cut across all segments of society. In sum, the Iranian bazaar merchants’ general strike is a classic example of how owners’ noncooperation can help bring down an authoritarian government.

Nepal 2006: Shopkeepers Join the Pro-Democracy Movement

When and where: In April 2006, a pro-democracy uprising in Nepal (often called the “People’s Movement” or Jana Andolan II) witnessed an indefinite general strike across the country. For 19 days (April 6 to April 24, 2006), Nepal’s cities were largely shut down, and this included the closure of shops and businesses nationwide.

Trigger: King Gyanendra had seized absolute power in 2005, suspending democracy. By April 2006, a coalition of seven political parties, supported by a Maoist rebel ceasefire, called for mass protests and a general strike to demand the restoration of parliament and an end to the king’s direct rule. The strike began as a response to the King’s intransigence and intensified after security forces cracked down on demonstrators.

How it was carried out: Markets, shops, schools, and offices all closed as part of the general strike. In the capital Kathmandu and towns across Nepal, merchants kept their shutters down day after day, despite curfews and emergency orders by the royal government. Streets normally crowded with vendors and customers were empty. Citizens cooperated by stockpiling essentials and avoiding non-urgent purchases, allowing the economic shutdown to persist. The strike was enforced in some areas by protest volunteers, and even small roadside shops joined in solidarity. For nearly three weeks, this strike crippled the country’s economy and daily life, showing the king that the populace would not relent. International media showed images of deserted town centers where commerce had completely halted, adding global pressure as well.

Outcomes: The sustained shutdown worked. Faced with the immovable general strike and massive street demonstrations, King Gyanendra eventually backed down. On April 24, 2006, he announced the reinstatement of the dissolved Parliament and effectively ended direct royal rule. The news was followed by jubilant celebrations in the streets. The strike was called off as Nepal moved toward restoring democracy. In this case, the merchants’ participation – closing their shops despite personal financial loss – was crucial in “crippling the country” during the protests and forcing the monarchy to concede. Normal life (shops, transport, communications) only resumed after the King agreed to the protesters’ key demands. The Nepal 2006 movement underscores how a merchants’ general strike, combined with popular protests, can succeed against an authoritarian power in a relatively short time when momentum and unity are strong.

Sudan 2019: Shutting Down Markets to Demand Civilian Rule

When and where: In mid-2019, during Sudan’s revolution, merchants joined forces with professionals and workers in multiple general strikes. Notably, in late May 2019 and again in early June 2019, countrywide strikes left markets and shops closed across Sudan’s cities. This was part of a broader civil disobedience campaign after the ouster of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir.

Trigger: After protesters succeeded in toppling President al-Bashir in April 2019, a Transitional Military Council (TMC) took control and was slow to hand power to civilians. Tensions climaxed when security forces violently attacked a peaceful sit-in on June 3, 2019, killing over 100 pro-democracy demonstrators. In response, the opposition forces (led by groups like the Sudanese Professionals Association and the Forces of Freedom and Change) called for a general political strike and mass civil disobedience to pressure the military junta to step aside. The immediate trigger for the June merchants’ strike was this “bloody crackdown” on protesters.

How it was carried out: Virtually all economic activity halted. Shops were closed and streets were empty throughout the capital Khartoum, the adjacent city of Omdurman, and beyond. Major markets, retail stores, restaurants, banks, and even gas stations shut their doors as part of the strike. Owners of small businesses and large alike participated, despite soldiers patrolling the streets. Sudanese organizers deliberately timed one strike to begin on a Sunday – the start of the workweek – to maximize its visibility and impact. The sight of normally bustling African markets completely deserted was striking. People stayed home in what was described as “complete civil disobedience” – a show of how much leverage the civilian movement had when everyone acted together. The strikes in May and June 2019 effectively paralyzed much of the country, closing markets, shops, restaurants, factories, and even public transit. Protest leaders communicated the strike plan widely, using social media and networks to ensure participation even in smaller towns.

Outcomes: The merchants’ general strike, as part of the broader campaign, proved to be a fast and effective lever. Protest organizers proclaimed that this peaceful shutdown was the “fastest and most effective way” to topple military rule. Indeed, the economic and social paralysis created by the strikes forced the military leadership to return to negotiations. Within weeks, the TMC agreed to form a joint transitional government with civilian representatives. By August 2019, a new civilian prime minister was appointed and a power-sharing arrangement was in place to guide Sudan toward elections. While Sudan’s path after 2019 has been complex, the June 2019 merchants’ strike clearly made a difference at a critical moment – it demonstrated that the public would not accept military rule, and it compelled the generals to compromise. The closed shops and empty streets of Sudan’s general strike became symbols of resistance that were seen around the world, highlighting the impact of collective nonviolent action.

Myanmar 2021: The “Silent Strike” Against a Coup

When and where: In 2021, following a military coup in Myanmar (Burma), pro-democracy activists launched a form of merchants’ strike known as the “Silent Strike.” On multiple days (one of the largest being March 24, 2021, and another on Dec 10, 2021), cities and towns across Myanmar saw businesses shuttered and public life come to a halt in protest of the junta.

Trigger: On February 1, 2021, Myanmar’s military ousted the elected government, sparking nationwide demonstrations. After weeks of street protests met with violent repression, activists shifted tactics to a silent show of defiance. They called on all citizens to stay home and all shops to close on specific days as a memorial to those killed and a protest against military rule. The December 10, 2021 silent strike, for example, was triggered by the junta’s harsh crackdowns and the sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi (the deposed civilian leader). It aimed to show the regime how completely the people rejected their authority.

How it was carried out: Protesters in Myanmar closed businesses and stayed off the streets during the silent strikes. In Yangon, Mandalay, and small towns alike, shops from large shopping malls to tea stalls and market vendors all kept their doors shut. People literally stayed indoors; city streets were deserted, creating a ghost-town effect. In essence, the country’s populace – including merchants – collectively “struck” by withdrawing from all economic and social activities for the day. This required secret organizing due to the danger: the military threatened to seize or damage businesses that closed and arrest those who promoted the strike. Yet, compliance was very high, indicating widespread support. Photos showed deserted streets and markets across the country – an eerie but powerful image of dissent. Such merchants’ strikes were repeated on significant dates, including the one-year anniversary of the coup in 2022, despite the risks.

Outcomes: The silent strikes in Myanmar did not immediately reverse the coup, but they had important effects. They demonstrated unity and resolve among the people even when open protests were too dangerous. The junta’s threats to shopkeepers (including sealing off properties that closed) actually underscored the strike’s impact – the regime wouldn’t threaten punishment unless the action hurt them. International media took note of the empty cities; it kept Myanmar’s resistance in the global conversation. While the struggle in Myanmar is ongoing, the merchants’ general strike tactic gave the movement a way to resist nonviolently on a massive scale, minimizing direct confrontations. It also memorialized those killed (“Silence is the loudest shout,” one activist explained, noting that by shutting everything down they honored fallen protesters while calling for their rights). The silent strikes of 2021–2022 will be remembered as a poignant example of how simply closing shops and staying home can speak volumes in a nonviolent resistance.