Non-Violent Insurgency: How Smart Rebels Win small wars
In my own work on Insurgency I have come over time to the postion that Insurgency is much more accurately a condition rooted in the perceptions of a populace towards its governance than it is any specific family of actions or organizations. How those conditions manifest is a choice made by the rebelling segments of the populace; but the causation itself is rooted in the governance. This is why one may well have several pockets of subversion and insurgency with unique views on ideology, tactics, goals, etc all orbiting about one hub of "poor governance"
The goal of this thread is to look at the relative merits of Violent vs. Non-Violent approaches on the part of the insurgent.
There is a body of work that makes a strong case for the smart insurgent (who I hope are reading this thread) to abandon violent approaches and to embrace non-violent apporaches instead. Not just because we seek greater stability and security for the populaces that are affected by the condition of insurgency, but because the U.S. stands very much for the principle of "good governance."
Governments rarely change of their own accord, and often it is necessary for the populace to force change upon their government. While current "war-based" COIN is rooted in preserving the current government and convincing the populace to stand down; suggested here is that it may well be far more effective to instead focus on encouraging those same popualces to take non-violent approaches, while at the same time encouraging those poor governances to listen to their people and evolve.
I will post a variety of products to support this premise. This is a debate that needs to take place. We have been trapped by our doctrine and definitions into narrow lanes that tend to cast violence as warfare, and all populace violence as insurgency. I hope to explore new, and more effective ways to characterize these activities as a part of this thread as well.
Some initial Data Points from Dr. Maria Stephan
What is Civil Resistance?
"The waging of determined conflict by strong forms of nonviolent action, especially against determined and resourceful opponents who may respond with repression."
---G. Sharp
Has this approach been applied over the past century, if so, where?
Indians, ‘20s-40s
Salvadorans, ‘44
African-Americans, ’60s
Poles, ‘70s-’80s
Czechs/Slovaks, ‘80s
Chileans, ‘85-’88
Filipinos, ‘86
East Germans, ‘89
Mongolians, ‘90
Malians, 91
Russians, ‘91
South Africans, 92
Serbs, ‘00
Georgians, ‘03
Ukrainians, ’04
Lebanese, ‘05
What are some examples of non-violent approaches to Poor Governance?
I. Nonviolent protest and persuasion
Petitions, wearing symbols, vigils, marches, humorous skits, walk-outs, renouncing honors, mock awards
II. Non-cooperation
Boycotts, strikes, social ostracism, stay-at-homes, refusal to pay taxes, civil disobedience
III. Nonviolent Intervention
Hunger strikes, sit-ins, alternative institutions, blockades
What is the track record of taking such approaches?
Study comparing 323 violent and NV campaigns, 1900-2006, found that NV campaigns succeeded 53% of the time, compared to 26% success rate for armed struggles (Stephan/Chenoweth)
Why: Participation, Pressure, Legitimacy
50/67 transitions from authoritarianism from 1970-2005 driven by bottom-up nonviolent resistance (Freedom House, How Freedom is Won)
Small Wars Journal now Small Politics Journal?
Wilf,
Rarely in my knowledge has the use of violence not been preceded by a non-violent phase, notably a public statement of the campaigns aims and so this thread addresses Small Wars in its widest application. I have recently read a book on the Baader-Meinhof gang / Red Army Faction and cite that as an example.
IIRC Frank Kitson's books also covered the pre-violent phase and that the military should stay away then.
So, SPJ it maybe Wilf and no harm is being done here:D. We are here to discuss and learn - within limits we know well.
Another time for a response to Bob's World.
Force or the threat of force always matters
Posted by Dayuhan,
Quote:
Some dictatorial regimes (eg Philippines 86) collapse before non violent resistance because they have already decayed to the point where they no longer command the loyalty of their own armed forces.
I think you hit the nail on the head, another peaceful protest would have simply been crushed by Marcus if he believed he could control the military, but he knew his military was divided and the U.S. Government gave him and Imelda a comfortable exit. He didn't have to worry facing a violent end like like Mussolini did; otherwise he made have made a different decision.
Many of the examples given as noted by Wilf are not accurrate. King's Civil Rights Movement was NOT an insurgency, it was simply a political movement working largely within the established legal framework. There was no intent to overthrow the government.
Gandhi was NOT responsible for India's independence. Serious Indian and British historians will tell you that Gandhi's civil movement had minimal impact on Britian's decision to give up India. As a matter of fact, Gandhi's movement died 10 years before the British decided to leave. Several factors influenced their decision, but the main one according to knowledgeable historians was the revolts of Indian National Army led by Bose. Although the military revolts failed, the subsequent trial of the militants exposed that Britian lost control of Sepoy's and could not count on them to maintain order in India. Furthermore, not only didn't Gandhi's movement contribute in any significant way to India's liberation, it didn't stop Britian's decision to divide India and create a separate country for the Muslims (East and West Pakistan), which led to consider slaughter on both sides (Hindu and Muslim). Since the Hindu nationalist movement wouldn't support Britian during WWII, the Brits relied on willing Indian Muslims to do so, and in return for their support they were rewarded with Pakistan (a gift that just keeps on giving).
Violence or the threat of violence has always played a key role in these movements. In the case of the Philippines the critical role of the threat of violence was mitigated because Marcus's behavior alienated much of his military. The movement started by Aquino and supported by Cardinal Sin definitely set the conditions for this to happen, but if the military remained loyal to Marcus the movement would have failed.