Can Non-Violent Resistance actually be MORE effective at regime change than War?

Great Debates
1

First I’d like to share the quote that spurred my thoughts on this, then make my own remarks…

From an interview with Gene Sharp in the June issue of Reason:

The arguments in favor, as I see them:

Popular nonviolent resistance of the sort he is talking about, in the context of the article, means ignoring the institutions of power in an oppressive statist regime. Don’t cooperate with the police, don’t cooperate with the tax collectors, don’t cooperate with anything the regime asks of you. Pretend it isn’t there. Start to shift the sentiments of the police and military to your side, get them to disobey orders to conduct oppressive activity. And one day, Milosevic walks out his front door to find his power barely extends past his driveway.

A people who bring about regime change in this way will probably be more civic minded, will be interested in partipatory democracy and shaping the nation they helped create, and will have more respect for the democratic institutions that they themselves create.

Furthermore, this sort of regime change ensures that democracy is never forced on a people by an outside military group. For one thing, this preserves the notion of self-determination, that the people should be free to choose their form of governance, to shape their own state. For another, democracy forced down someone’s throat probably doesn’t look much like democracy since it’s origin would be an authoritarian one.

Why nonviolent internal resistance? Because any democracy which is created by force will share that problem, will appear to be imposed by the will of some group or another. In one of his books, Sharp argues that our own revolution was successful because it began with nonviolent opposition, simply ignoring the taxes we didn’t like and giving the British troops no cooperation. By the time the fighting began, the British had very little real power other than what they could force at the barrel of a musket or point of a bayonet.

The cons:

This is alot like storming the field at a college football game. If you are the first guy to storm out, and nobody follows you within a few seconds, you’re gonna get arrested. But somebody must be the first one to hop down there. People only successfully storm the field if A) they spend the previous 10 minutes chanting about how they’re gonna do it, so the first guy knows he’ll have backup, or B) you win suddenly and amazingly and unexpectedly and everyone gets the idea at the same time.

To be the first one to stick your neck out and give the authorities a tough time could end up getting you alot worse than arrested in a harsh regime. So if you’re gonna be the first one, you either have to plan this out for a long time and trust the people to follow your lead, or you have to react quickly to a startling example of brutality and hope spontaneity rules the day.

And of course, when it’s all said and done, there’s no guarantee the result of all this will be a democratic regime. There are plenty of populist movements that are nondemocratic. The popular resistance, having erased the dictator’s power, might very well install a theocracy, or a socialist state, rather than a democratic one.

I would welcome the comments of anyone familiar with pacifist thought, or who thinks it’s a bunch of mularkey, on whether regime change without violence is feasible.

2

Making my response brief: I think this really depends on individual circumstances. For example it did not work in Tiananmen Square, or in Czechoslovakia (Soviet era). I doubt it would have worked in Iraq. Or in Cuba, or North Korea.

Some yes, some no

That is me, sitting on the fence:D

3

That can be said about war as well; Korea, Vietnam, Chechnya, Palestine, et al. I think another debate altogether would be, how often does war achieve it’s objectives at all? Aside from the World Wars, I’ll bet the record will show that most conflicts end with many dead and not much resolved, certainly nothing approaching an overwhelming victory by one side or the other.

4

But that is due to the people setting the objectives.

-WW2 was a overwhelming victory for the Allies because no other outcome was acceptable to the Allies. Ditto for ‘Iraqi Freedom’, no outcome other then the total elimination of the Baath regime was acceptable (once the decision to go to war was made), and voila!..

-Vietnam was a utter failure, since the objective setters didn’t have one. Desert Storm can be considered a failure to some degree, since the hostile regime was left in power. The Korean War can be considered somewhat of a failure, since the hostile regime was left in power.

5

Once it is clear to people that a dictatorial regime does not dare to kill the populace, it works great. All you have to do is look at Eastern Europe in '89. All earlier attempts for regime change there failed. I think Milosivich falls much closer to that scenario than to the situation in Iraq. And the goal of the Serbian bombing was always about stopping the slaughter in Kosovo. Getting rid of Milosevich was a secondary benefit.

Can you name one truely totalitarian regime that his been brought down in the modern era by nonviolent resistance alone?

And Brutus, D.S. never had the objective to unseat S.H. It accomplished it’s goals, and therefore was a success. I think the goal was too limited, but that’s a different matter.

6

I once read an alternative history short story, the premise of which was that Germany had won WWII and, in the process, had conquered British India.

Gandhi and Nehru organized and led the same non-violent resistance against the Germans that they had led against the British. The story ends with a goodly chunk of Gandhi’s followers massacred and Nehru and Gandhi lined up against a wall and shot.

Non-violent resistance depends upon the opponents being susceptible to moral persuasion. In effect, the opponents defeat themselves because they are not willing to take the callous and inhuman steps necessary to defeat non-violent resistance.

So, it all depends on who the bad guys are (or, perhaps more accurately, who the bad guy’s subordinates are -whether they will tell their troops to fire on the resisters).

Sua

7

Like John Mace I cannot think of a single truly totalitarian regime that was brought down by non-violent resistance. I wish it were so, however, if the existing power has no problems with the killing of the civilian population then non-violent resistance has no real chance at all. Behave non-violently, and die. Indeed, a case might be made that an external push is usually required, and that internal guerilla actions usually fail withtou this

8

For a case like Irak it could have only worked if a very large proportion of the people would have joined (75% and up, my WAG) I highly doubt that the minions of Saddam would have the recklesness (???) to swat the movement; they have family and friends after all.
That said, I think that different situations require different critical masses to succeed; but non-violent resistance is definetly the best way for change.

9

Ale:

Yes, if the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south had gotten together and started to “resist”, they would’ve had to quickly shift to violent techniques to gain any ground. Then the US (or UN) could’ve stepped in w/o the world’s outrage. But that would have probably meant many, many thousands of dead Kurds/Shiites in the process.

10

That´s why I said that a very large part of the population should join the resistance, not just Shiites and Kurds, but Shi´a and Sunnis as well

11

I was assuming that only those in the no-fly zones would even think about revolting.

12

That depends on how strictly you define non-violence. There have been significant number of repressive governments overthrown largely by nonviolent protest. In addition to the Solidarity Movement in Poland (1980), Apartheid in South Africa (1984), and the brutal reign of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile (1983), there were the smaller victories achieved by largely non-violent revolutions:

A Force More Powerful

Now if you are going to say these examples were not completely and entirely non-violent, strictly speaking, you would be correct. But their success was due primarily to the effects of passive resistance rather than force of arms. And in fairness, you must then apply the same standard to governments overthrown by military conflict; nearly all have a component of passive resistance by partisans or an underground movement interfering with the economy or government operation, so there has never been a “pure” military victory either.

13

My understanding is that neither of them were shot by regimes. Did I misunderstand you?

Didn’t East Germany fall because of non-violent protests coupled with an error on the part of one of the leaders?

Although the USSR had its moments of violence before its fall, was there any military action that brought it down?

14

Zoe:

The tanks were lined up against the Kremlin and Yeltsin stood in front of them daring them to shoot. In the end, there wasn’t the will to keep the totalitarian state in tact.

East Germany, as well as the rest of Eastern Europe only changed once people were certain that the USSR would not use brute force to supress them. But Hungary and Czechoslovakia both had brutal USSR lead suppression of internal revolts in the 50s and 60s, respectively.

15

Zoe:

The tanks were lined up against the Kremlin and Yeltsin stood in front of them daring them to shoot. In the end, there wasn’t the will to keep the totalitarian state in tact.

East Germany, as well as the rest of Eastern Europe only changed once people were certain that the USSR would not use brute force to supress them. But Hungary and Czechoslovakia both had brutal USSR lead suppression of internal revolts in the 50s and 60s, respectively.

16

Zoe, re-read my post. I was discussing an alternative-history short story I had read. :wink:

Sua

17

That must be Harry Turtledove’s The Last Article, originally published in the January 1988 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and anthologized since.

18

It was tried in Iraq. But the Baathists were too strong, too well equipped, and too brutal. They may not have been able to stand up against the US for a month, but they could (and have) easily dealt with disorganized light infantry. With enough people, it could happen, but the required numbers would be astoundingly big. You’d need a very long-term build up to succeed. The Baathists have never allowed that to happen.

19

Pinochet stepped down also because the US’s Elliott Abrams tried to pressure him into the plebiscite, not just becuase of protests. So that isn’t totally due to internal pressure. Even so, i think Pinochet got 44% of the vote, so i don’t think that qualified him in the same category as people like Hussein or pol pot, who would probably get 3% of the vote in an election.

All in all i doubt the OP. I’d guess most dictators die in their sleep or because outside agencies help to force them out rather than internal protests. I don’t have a stat on hand, but i’d say internal protest is only moderately good at regime change, especially when the regime in question is recieving military benefits from outside countries. International coercion combined with internal pressure (economic, political, military) is a better method than internal pressure alone. It can strengthen or weaken a government.

20

A question about the OP. Does ‘non violent’ resistance include international coercion? Like when Europe threatened to cut economic benefits to Cuba after they arrested dissidents, or when the US imposes sanctions on a government like Myanmar or Sudan, does that count as non violent resistance or must the non violent resistance be strictly domestic?

you mention the US revolution, but that might have failed w/o the help of the french.

The way i see it, if people couldn’t stand up to Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler (2 were removed by invading armies, one died in his sleep), who murdered in bulk, then internal resistance is a pretty weak method of regime change.