1) Non Violent Resistance

Stephan and Chenoweth

Does non-violent resistance against violent governments work?

If so… Why?

What is non-violence?

"Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social, psychological, economic, and political means without the threat or use of violence"

Patterns of Non-violence

like violence… there are repertoires:

protests, boycotts, labor strikes, non-cooperation, non-violent intervention

excludes lobbying, election campaigning, legislating (traditional political channels)

Strategic non-violence vs. Principled non-violence

principled non-violence: religious/ethical/philosophical commitment to not use violence

strategic non-violence: use of non-violent means to create disruptions that compel concessions from the opponent (no philosophical commitment needed!)

Example from Anti-Lynching Movement:

• NAACP used Protests
• economic boycotts, leaving lynching communities

Stephan and Chenoweth show…

1. Non-violent resistance campaigns succeed more than violent campaigns
2. Campaigns that shift loyalties of security forces and bureaucrats likey to win
3. Costly to repress widespread nonviolent mobilization

Why is nonviolence more effective?

Two key reasons

• One is purely strategic
• Another involves framing and media

Non-violent Resistance is less threatening

1. General public sees non-violent campaign as less threatening \(\rightarrow\) more support from public

2. Government officials and security forces not in physical danger \(\rightarrow\) willing to switch support to protesters

Non-violent Resistance makes repression backfire

When regimes use violence against non-violent movement:

1. violence may backfire, producing greater costs for and opposition to the regime

2. three different ways, with connection to media and framing

1) Mobilize popular support against regime

• Violence against non-violent protesters morally wrong (RMT)
• Broadens the movement beyond original focus (broader diagnostic frames/master frames)

\(\rightarrow\)

More popular support puts pressure on regime (e.g. Indonesia and East Timor)

2) Encourages Defections from Security Forces/Bureaucrats

Creates moral costs

may find violence against fellow "ordinary" citizens unacceptable (RMT)

Creates political/personal costs

even if violence against citizens could be justified; jeopardizes other moral relationships

• 'meta-relational' models: how can soldiers/police explain killing to their families, friends, neighbors?

3) Elicits External Sanction

Creates moral costs

Other countries/businesses/etc. may find this disproportionate violence immoral:

• sanction, withdrawal of support to regime;
• new support for protest movement

Creates political costs

Countries/businesses that support regime now open to criticism:

• if shamed, will withdraw support; risk of scandal

Success of "backfire" depends on media campaigns:

1. Audiences (domestic/international) must know about violent repression

2. Audiences must know victims were nonviolent

• If victims are "terrorists", "rebels", what happens?
• Lynching and "Race Wars"

How to get desirable media coverage?

• Public statements on nonviolent means; practice
• Choice of targets that are high visibility
• Presence of independent sources to document what happens
• Means to disseminate what happens