On Non-Violent Resistance
By: Connor Worley
When trying to achieve grand political goals such as secession, independence, or greater freedoms, a movement faces the question of how to accomplish such an endeavor. Do they pursue a violent insurgency like Che Guvera or a civil resistance akin to Gandhi’s? Throughout history, both violent and non-violent campaigns have been successful. Robert Mugabe and ZANU successfully overthrew the government of Rhodesia. Similarly, the non-violent Otpor movement in Serbia managed to remove Slobodan Milosevic from power at the turn of the millennium. The question remains, however, which will be more effective? Which will lead to a better state? Professor Erica Chenoweth set out to answer these questions in her book, “Why Civil Resistance Works.”
Professor Chenoweth examined and analyzed 323 intrastate conflicts from the 1940s through the mid-2000s and found that non-violent campaigns were more successful at realizing their goals. Compared to violent insurgencies, civil resistance campaigns benefit from the ability to mobilize larger masses of people. Groups who violently counter the state are inherently limited in participation. The barriers of entry are much higher for insurgent groups than non-violent organizations. Recruits to an insurgent group must be willing and physically able to brandish weapons, live and fight in often hostile and remote areas of a nation; these barriers often preclude women, the elderly, and children from joining ranks. Non-violent campaigns, however, have no such barrier issue and are therefore able to mobilize a larger percentage of the population. By nature of having more participants, the greater people power lends increased legitimacy to the resistance movement.
Non-violent campaigns also benefit from having more numerous and more effective “weapons” at their disposal than violent insurgencies. Civil resistance campaigns can make use of boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, protests, and a variety of other non-violent non-compliant tools to achieve political change. What makes these methods more effective compared to those of an insurgency is that they cause less moral outrage among the populace, contributing further to mass mobilization. Professor Chenoweth found that not a single non-violent movement failed in its stated goals that successfully mobilized 3.5% of the population.
Additionally, violence against the state has shown to increase support of the state among the bureaucratic and state police forces. Non-violent actions, however, have shown the ability to both pull away at the state’s pillars of support and cause police forces to actively not suppress the movements. A final point that professor Chenoweth makes is that if a movement wins by the sword, it governs by the sword as well; non-violent campaigns are far more likely than violent ones to result in peaceful and democratic rule.
We can view the efficacy of non-violent civil resistance in our current age. In Hong Kong, an estimated 1.7 million people mobilized in protests of an extradition bill with mainland China. After weeks of mass demonstrations, class boycotts, and disruptions at the Hong Kong international airport, Carrie Lam, the executive of Hong Kong shelved the extradition bill. Hong Kong isn’t the only recent example. In December 2018, protestors in Sudan started demanding the removal of Sudan’s long-time dictator Omar al-Bashir. After months of increasingly larger and larger demonstrations, even in the face of violence and persecution, the Sudanese military stepped in on behalf of the citizens of Sudan and ousted al-Bashir from power. The resolve and dedication of these protestors show that even in an age of increasing authoritarianism and civil suppression, non-violent resistance is an effective way of achieving great political change.
Connor Worley is an Arms Control Fellow at Peace Economy Project.
