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

[The_Calculus_of_Logic]

*Originally posted by Fear Itself *
**
Argentina (1977-83)

On March 24, 1976, a military coup unleashes a multiyear wave of terror. The junta browbeats the press, the judiciary, the Church, and trade unions. As kidnappings of civilians mount, mothers of “the disappeared” join together. In April 1977, 14 mothers — Las Madres — hold a vigil in front of the presidential palace in Buenos Aires. Their numbers growing, the women continue to gather despite beatings, arrests, and the disappearances of nine of their members. Las Madres also circulate petitions, take out newspaper advertisements, and hold prayer services for the missing. A severe economic crisis in the early 1980s and the disastrous invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 further discredit the junta, ending the timidity of religious, business, and labor leaders. Demonstrations that begin in 1982 eventually succeed in forcing the junta to hold elections and cede power to a civilian government.

Czechoslovakia (1989)

In the Soviet bloc state of Czechoslovakia, two organizations — Charter 77 and the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted — demand that the government abide by the human rights guarantees in its own constitution. These small groups face steady police harassment and struggle to expand their membership beyond dissident intellectuals. By the mid-1980s, resurgent Catholicism combines with a pervasive disaffection toward the Communist Party to provide the impetus for more large-scale demonstrations of social solidarity. On November 17, 1989, 30,000 defenseless Czech students are beaten by riot police in Prague, sparking the “Velvet Revolution.” Motivated students fan out across the country to persuade industrial workers to join a general strike, showing them videotapes of the beatings. Enormous crowds convene for demonstrations in Prague’s Wenceslas Square, and a two-hour strike draws widespread participation. By early December, overwhelmed by the united front that the working class and intellectuals present, the ruling communists step down, and a noncommunist coalition government takes power — as other communist governments in Eastern Europe fall to similar popular movements.
**

Its hard to tell how much those were due to non violent resistance and not timing or outside influence. the Czechoslovakian non violent protests occured when gorbachev was in power and gorbachev had made it a policy not to use the military to squash protest (if i recall correctly). if they had happened when Kruschev or Stalin was in power things would’ve been much different. many Baltic states fell when Gorbachev was in power because the reigns of control weren’t as strong.

In regards to Argentina, it is hard to say how much of a role the Falklands war had in helping to discredit and remove the Argentine military dictatorship.

The point is, it wasn’t just non violent protests that caused change but non violent protests done at the right time in the countries history because circumstances outside the protesters control made them work more effectively.

[The_Calculus_of_Logic]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
**
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.
**

If a people are being oppressed how are they under self determination? People wouldn’t even overthrow Stalin and Pol Pot during their heydays, 2 of the most destructive (on a per capita basis) leaders in the 20th century. They had no ‘self-determination’.

I know this post is tied into Iraq, but what about the fact that in 1991 rebellion of Iraq 14 of the 18 provinces of Iraq fell to rebels? Dosn’t that show a willingness to revolt (when the timing seems right)? 44% of Chileans wanted Pinochet to stay in power (almost as many people voted for Pinochet in chile as people voted for Gore or Bush in the US, probably more if their turnout rate was higher), but they handled their democracy pretty good after Pinochet was gone.

The logic you present seems faulty. there can be outside intervention (military, economic, political) that only prevents the enemies of democracy from oppressing people. IMO helping people obtain self determination by removing obstacles is a good thing. It doesn’t make them slaves. People in the US weren’t slaves when the French tried to help us obtain independence from Britian.

[MLS]

I must confess ignorance of who Gene Sharp is, but part of what you have quoted

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.

This makes little or no sense if you read very much of the history of the Revolutionary War. First of all, at the time of the war, it is doubtful that much more than a third of the population actively supported the idea of revolution at all. Another third were probably actively opposed.

The first real conflict, the Boston “massacre,” began with a mob of unruly people throwing stones and icy snowballs at the British troops. The soldiers who fired back in defense were ultimately acquitted of any wrongdoing. Had the new republic-to-be not had the explicit support of France, the assistance from a German officer in drilling the troops into shape, and the tacit support of the Dutch, who helped keep them supplied through the West Indies, there is no way the revolution would have succeeded.

Read Barbara Tuchman’s The First Salute for a very readable account of the role played by these entities.

[Linty_Fresh]

I suppose the problem I have with the method of non-violent change is that I have read about only two cases where non-violence was the main method the protestors used to get what they wanted and actually succeeded. One was MLK fighting for civil rights, and the other was Gandhi, who has been mentioned above.

The problem with non-violence is that neither MLK nor Gandhi were fighting against totalitarian regimes. They were fighting against generally benevolent governments with a messed-up view of their morality in light of national/world events.

Yes, the U.S. and British governments made terrible errors in refusing civil rights. Yes, they were sometimes brutal. But compared with the dictatorships of, say, North Korea or Afghanistan, they were actually pretty benign. They made an effort to follow the rules of civilized society, even if this effort fell short once in a while.

How would MLK have fared in Nazi Germany with a non-violent message? Would anyone be reading about Gandhi in the history books, had he tried his protests in Stalinist Russia? Any government can be repressive, and most governments have during their history. It’s a question of the degree of repression and the effort of the government to avoid repression.

[ruadh]

Non-violent rejectionist Ulster Unionists have been more effective at bringing down the power-sharing government in Northern Ireland than the anti-agreement paramilitaries (from both sides) were.

Of course, the Ulster Unionists have the British Government on their side.