WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT ENHANCE THE POSSIBILITY FOR SUCCESS OF A NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT?

1. ‘Without excellent strategy nonviolent resistance will inevitably fail.’ Discuss.

2. ‘If the international context is not favourable, no amount of skilful strategy will ensure the success of a nonviolent movement.’ Discuss.

3. ‘The more autocratic the ruler, the less chance of success for nonviolent forms of resistance.’ Discuss.

‘WITHOUT EXCELLENT STRATEGY NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE WILL INEVITABLY FAIL.’ DISCUSS.

Different types of nonviolent resistance

Is the importance of strategy dependant on the aims of the movement and the context it operates in?

The Rosenstrasse protest (1943) is an example of a largely spontaneous instance of nonviolent resistance, with limited goals, and little need for strategic organisation and leadership.

Strategy is arguably a more important factor in deciding the success or failure of a movement if it has wider more long-term goals. E.g. U.S. Civil Rights movement.

How do we assess failure?

Division of movements into successes and failures is much too simplistic.

The Chartist movement may not have directly generated any constitutional change, and it certainly had some strategic flaws (lack of unity, inability to create a national mass movement), but it did put issues on the agenda, open the door to less radical reformers and provide a model for future movements to follow.

How do we assess success?

Gandhi’s campaign for national independence in India lasted for a very long time without achieving its goals – and when independence did arrive it can be argued that it is down to other factors.

The U.S. Civil rights movement had many successes, but Martin Luther King jr.’s dream has not been fully realised.

The Orange Revolution prevented Victor Yanukovych from becoming President in 2004, but he won the most recent elections in 2010.

Arguably the movement against Milosevic in Serbia has failed to address deeper structural problems as corruption persists to this day

What do we mean by “excellent strategy”?

There are varying degrees of strategic competence. Is the idea of strong, centralised leadership a key to

“excellent strategy” or just one possible way of organising a successful movement?

Environmentalist groups have suffered from not having a leader to speak to the media on the behalf of the movement.

Otpor! was successful without a single leader, though this in itself was a strategic decision. Other factors were important in making this possible, like modern technology, and widespread education in the techniques of nonviolence.

The national independence movement in India (and many others) have been much more centralised – perhaps because they have needed to be.

How important is the context and composition of each movement in determining what good strategy is?

‘IF THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT IS NOT FAVOURABLE, NO AMOUNT OF SKILFUL STRATEGY WILL ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF A NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT.’ DISCUSS.

Historiography

Literature on nonviolent resistance tends to stress the role of agency in promoting political change

In the last 10 years scholars like Kurt Schock and Adam Roberts have more fully integrated social conditions into evaluations of movements

Importance of factors outside of strategy

Study by Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth concluded that violent resistance campaigns achieved success 26% of the time, compared with 53% success rate for nonviolent resistance campaigns [looking at 300+ civil resistance movements 1900-2005]

Suggests that factors specific to each case of nonviolent resistance hold a strong sway over whether a skilfully strategized nonviolent campaign will succeed

Case Study: Prague Spring, 1968 Strong case for importance of international conditions

for a movement Kieran Williams described the resistance of almost

the entire Czechoslovakian population as “technically perfect...but largely irrelevant to the fate of reform socialism” which they were fighting for

Resistance given legitimacy by the Czech government and media used to urge civilians resist non-violently

Czech leaders taken to Moscow to negotiate and therefore did not make use of the widespread resistance at home. Conceded to almost all Soviet demands

Case Study: Western Europe in the Second World War

Another example of importance of international context

Successful nonviolent resistance campaign in Denmark e.g. smuggled 99% of Danish Jews out of country rapidly; unity of population against Nazis

Judged to be more successful than Norway, Netherlands, and French resistance

However Denmark was given a special place by Hitler and his commanders and citizens treated with far greater respect – would resistance have been similar if Danes had a more traumatic experience as in the rest of Europe?

Foreign powers as outsiders

International context still significant although varies far more depending on individual cases – particularly depends on how much media attention a resistance movement is given

Civil Rights struggle, USA 1960s Anti-apartheid and international

sanctions in South Africa

Conclusion

International context is therefore sometimes an integral factor in the success of nonviolent resistance movements, e.g. Prague Spring

Plays a lesser role in resistance campaigns that are primarily internal, although media attention and actions like international sanctions often seem to affect outcomes as much as an effective strategy can

‘THE MORE AUTOCRATIC THE RULER, THE LESS CHANCE OF SUCCESS FOR NONVIOLENT FORMS OF RESISTANCE.’ DISCUSS.

Definition

Definition of autocracy is absolute rule by one person. Thus military junta in Burma arguable more repressive than Milosevic but an oligarchy not an autocracy.

Hannah Arendt

Arendt’s conception of power seems to suggest that the more autocratic a ruler the better chance of nonviolent resistance being successful

Power is the force of the “many” while violence is an instrument of the “one” in opposition to the many

Ultimate power thus rests for Arendt with those with numerical superiority

As the “one” against the “many”, autocrats as solitary individuals need greater consent of the populace than broader-based, representative forms of government

Hannah Arendt

Autocrat needs to legitimise his authority in other ways (such as divine right or national security) which are perhaps easier to undermine for nonviolent activists

All loyalty and consent to govern must be invested in one individual

Sharp and Political “Jiu-Jitsu” The fewer people in power, the fewer people have

a stake in the continuation of existing power structures

Political jiu-jitsu – repression isolates and drives social groups into opposition – thus in an autocracy has a greater reservoir of potential activists

In a democracy it’s more difficult for opposition activists to mobilise large numbers of people against the regime and portray it as illegitimate

It is much easier to pressure political, economic and social elites to get rid of a loathed autocratic “frontman” like Mubarak or Milosevic

Constructive Programmes

More difficult in autocracy as an autocrat’s rule often rests on the contention that the autocrat is the sole source of legitimate power – no opposition tolerated

In a democracy, democratic norms tend to mean a regime tolerates moderate opposition

Otpor

Became clear that Milosevic was not ruling for the “many”

The autocratic nature of the Serbian state meant that repression of a specifically student movement backfired and mobilised previously apolitical sections of Serb society against Milosevic

More vulnerable to nonviolent resistance than violent attack – in context of break-up of Yugoslavia likely that many Serbs would have rallied around “strongman” Milosevic

Milosevic unable to prevent development of a constructive programme – internet community and music concerts

Occupy Movement

In a democracy legitimacy is assumed to lie with the government – this the importance of the claim of numerical superiority as the basis for legitimacy - 99%

Democratic norms tend to reduce the level of repression and lessen the impact of political jiu-jitsu

Opposition movements are perhaps more easily demonised – “anti-democratic”

Constructive programmes like the Occupy tent city in Zuccotti Park can be dismantled by the regime after allowing them for an initial phase to demonstrate “democratic “freedoms”

Nonviolent movements then can ironically struggle in a democracy, as it is difficult to mobilise large groups of people and wrest the mantle of legitimacy from the government

Autocracy and Repression

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Chartists

Hungary

Finland

Gandhi (SA)

Gandhi (India)

Denmark

Civil Rights

Anti-Apartheid

Poland

GDR

Burma/China

Serbia

Occupy

Repression

Au

tocra

cy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Chartists

Hungary

Finland

Gandhi (SA) Gandhi (India)

Denmark

Civil Rights

Anti-Apartheid

Poland East Germany

Burma

China

Serbia

Occupy

Success

Au

tocr

acy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Chartists

Hungary

Finland

Gandhi (SA)

Gandhi (India)

Denmark

Civil Rights

Anti-ApartheidPoland

East Germany

Burma

China

Serbia

Occupy

Success

Rep

ress

ion