It has been debated though out history whether or not nonviolence “works”. Many societies, and this without question includes the United States, have mostly relied on violent tactics. Many people believe that violence is the only way to stop wars, even though it creates war, and people tend to believe that violence is the one solution to many global and political problems. However, recent literature and research is starting to prove otherwise. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist, recently published a book, Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. The research highlights data that shows throughout history, nonviolent tactics are more effective than violent ones in various ways.
Chenoweth seeks to explain why “nonviolent resistance often succeeds compared to violent resistance, and under what conditions nonviolence succeeds or fails”. In recent years, organized groups conducting civil disobedience have been successful using nonviolent tactics such as, “boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized noncooperation”, in order to challenge the current power they were facing.1 Some successful examples of regimes that have been removed from power in recent years are, “Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004-2005), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006)”.1 More recently in 2011 there were major uprising in both Egypt and Tunisia that were able to remove regimes that had been in power for decades, showing that nonviolence can work even if the regime has been in power for years.1
One striking fact of violent and nonviolent campaigns is that the frequency of both has grown throughout the years. Both had been steadily increasing since the 1900s and both had a sharp decline after 2006. However, the frequency of violent campaig...
... middle of paper ...
... can take power away from regimes successfully, but there are very few ways a regime and even a violent campaign can take power away a nonviolent movement effectively and without failing in the long term.
Works Cited
Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works : The Strategic Logic of
Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Lawrence, Adria, Erica Chenoweth, and Affairs Belfer Center for Science and International. 2010.
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
The success of nonviolent civil resistance: Erica Chenoweth at TEDxBoulder. Video. Directed by TED
Talks. Boulder: 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
applies the principles of civil disobedience in his procedure of a nonviolent campaign. According to him, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King 262). The first step, which is “collection of the facts,” clarify whether the matter requires civil disobedience from the society (King 262). The second step, “negotiation,” is the step where civil disobedience is practiced in a formal way; to change an unjust law, both sides come to an agreement that respects each other’s demand, (King 262). Should the second step fail, comes the “self-purification,” in which the nonconformists question their willingness to endure the consequences without any retaliation that follow enactment of civil disobedience (King 262). The fourth and the last step, “direct action,” is to execute it; coordinated actions such as protests or strikes to pressure no one, but the inexpedient government to conform to them, and advocate their movement, and thus persuade others to promote the same belief (King 262). This procedure along with principles of civil disobedience is one justifiable campaign that systematically attains its objective. King not only presents, but inspires one of the most peaceful ways to void unjust
Congressman Lewis’s powerful graphic memoir March highlights the role of nonviolent activism in challenging racial segregation and discrimination and effecting social change. Within the two books, March One and Two, we as readers see some of these nonviolent activities that were implemented by the protesters to show the world that nonviolence is the way to go to bring change in an unjust society and its bias laws. Some of these nonviolent activities that proved to be effective in the eyes of freedom fighters were sit-ins, marches and speeches. Even some minor activities such as going to jail for a cause was proven to be effective.
In the article, written by Cesar Chavez, an argument of whether people should react with violence or nonviolence is displayed. Chavez argues that violence is never the answer and will eventually lead to more violence. Examples of how to protest peacefully are shown to prove that it is the better solution. Chavez’s sophisticated use of juxtaposition, anecdote, and imagery appeals to the reader by showing them that nonviolence is far more powerful than violence.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
Likewise, violent protests raise awareness in a negative and oftentimes irrational light. Following the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in the fall of 2014***, countless riots shed light on a new twist on a century-old issue; race in America. The man shot was an African-American, unarmed, young adult. He was shot by a white police officer who believed the young man to be a threat to his safety. His death became the catalyst for the modern Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on equality in American justice systems. While the movement places an emphasis on a need for change, much like Martin Luther King did in the 1960’s, the mass riots from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland contradict civil disobedience. The riots caused hundreds of vandalisms, countless injuries of police officers in both cities, and created fear for the movement. Awareness for the issues were raised because of this movement, but the violent initial spark of it derailed the solid proof of the need for change. This further proves the necessity that civil disobedience is on a free society; peaceable expression of views has a heavier weight when it comes to altering the course of a
Although most people would find violence a necessity to gaining what they want, Caesar Chavez recognizes the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Violence is the instinctive reaction people have to a variety of situations. This was often the case with opposing views people had during the Civil Rights Era. In a magazine of religious organization the author Chavez emphasizes how nonviolent resistance will earn them equal rights with little to no bloodshed through the use of several rhetorical devices.
Andrew Calabrese, Virtual non-violence? Civil disobedience and political violence in the information age (2004) 6 Emerald Info 326 available at http://spot.colorado.edu/~calabres/Calabrese%20(civl%20dis).pdf
· Cohen, Carl, Civil Disobedience, Tactics and the Law. 1971, Columbia University Press: NY. Pgs: 3, 5, 6, 9, and 11.
■ Past progress in history had only occured when people acted and created tensions with those in power—> civil disobedience, as opposed to violence
types of nonviolent actions from not just the leaders, but the ones who follow them, show a true
Conclusion: Nonviolent protest are more effective than violent protest in effort to bring about social change.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. (King, Jr., 1963)
The practice of civil disobedience has long been discussed as to whether it inspires true social change, or only creates conflict within society. The peaceful resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. can be used as a primary example supporting the positive effects of civil disobedience. While the morality of his actions against the previous law of segregation can be debated, the positive influence of ending segregation is undeniable (Bill of Rights Institute). However, King’s methods of achieving this change, such as peaceful protesting and marches, should not be confused with the non-peaceful rejection of laws. While riots and violence encourage hate and separation, civil disobedience displays how society could function peacefully without the laws being opposed (Bill of Rights Institute). It is then demonstrated that the peaceful resistance to laws, or civil disobedience, positively impacts a free society.
During the 1960’s, protests were as common as clear skies. While many were done with violence and ended in bloodshed, the vast majority were peaceful and well-planned. The hippie and flower-power movement pressured politicians into ended the highly controversial Vietnam War. While it took years to end the war, many politicians have since spoke of the immense pressure the protests has on them. The pressure ensured that the concerns of the people were in mind when making decisions, and eventually led to the end of the conflict in 1974. Max Fisher, a journalist for the Washington Post, wrote an article (Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for toppling dictators) on the success of peaceful protest. He cites the findings of a political scientist as proof of the success of peaceful disobedience. He claimed that all movements that 3.5% or more of populations sympathized or supported, were nonviolent; he wrote,”...every single (protest) campaign that exceeded that 3.5 percent point was a nonviolent one.” The finding compiled here also found that from years 1900-2006, 65% of peaceful protests were successful in deposing authoritarian
While using violence to counteract violence may seem like a contradiction of sorts it is possibly the only recourse for the oppressed. It is impossible to create a formula of what works and doesn’t work in terms of emancipation because it is highly dependent on the particular situation but it is quite apparent that counterviolence is a necessary tool in this struggle. As we have seen, violence is not the only tool in liberation; the reconstruction of human ethics and perceptions is as, or more, important. Furthermore, it has been shown that sometimes nonviolence can create systemic change and that violence is not always applicable. Other times, violence is the only means to achieve true human emancipation.