Threat or Opportunity: non-violent protest?

[jmm99]

Minutes of 2 Nov 1967 "Wise Men" meeting - as to which, that group believed that all was going well:

2 Nov 1967 Snip 01.jpg

Mr Dean (Wiki, Korea, Geneva, NYT Obit) suggested that:

2 Nov 1967 Snip 02.jpg

Over the next 4 months, he delved into his own questions. His answer on 25 March 1968 was disengagement.

The problem that the Johnson Admin had is that it had propagated a gospel that we would win - "light at end of tunnel", etc. When that became doubtful, the Admin's competence (in the public's eye and in the Wise Mens' eyes) went through the floor.

Regards

Mike

[Bill Moore]

Disappointing that the advice given to the President on Vietnam in many ways sounds too similiar to the advice given to the President on Afghanistan. Once again we dived in with no clear and achievable end in mind, and love to point out the numerous tactical successes we're having.

I did a lot of reading on this topic, and actually watched it unfold as a kid. I remember witnessing the war protests and racial riots quite vividly during those days and there should be no doubt both these issues were key national issues that touched most of America to some extent. The difference is the President did the right thing concerning the Civil Rights Movement and he mishandled the Vietnam War. Those who knew him best said it was Vietnam that convinced him not to run again, so I'm not sure why we would challenge that assessment.

Posted by Marc,

Let's not glorify non-violence. It relies on the enthusiasm of the people, but is not necessarily democratic. Non-violence is a defeat mechanism in its own right. The Iranian revolution of 1979 was largely non-violent. For many a movement, the art of non-violence is to arouse the masses, start a revolution and take control the day after the revolution.

I think this comment most accurately addresses the question of whether these movements are an opportunity or a threat. We shouldn't automatically equate these movements as being democratic or even necessarily representing a significant percentage of the population. We sure as heck can't automatically confuse them as democracy breaking out (but we can still hope until proven otherwise). In short it is a tactic that be employed for both good and evil ends, and its success demends on a number of variables in each circumstance.

Non violence led by Ghandi didn't work in India, yet it is still a myth perpetuated by those who "want to believe". Non violence didn't work in China and won't work in China in the current environment. Non violent movements in most countries can be violently suppressed "if" the government still maintains control of the security forces and decides to employ harsh methods, so like any tactic it can only be employed in certain situations to attain specific ends (for better or worse).

What I do find interesting is the ability to use social media to facilitate these movements in unique ways. However, as we all know popular movements have been facilitated in the past without this technology.

[davidbfpo]

LBJ and Gandhi aside I do wonder as autocratic states look around the scene what are the lessons learnt?

First and foremost electronic communication is so dangerous. If you are a developing autocratic state, would you want to allow this to develop? I understand it is easy to switch off mobile phone networks, the UK has a preferential system in place for emergencies, so state mobiles work and for example others can only get calls in. Isolating international links, which are via a few nodes, unless you have a sat phone, appears to be easy.

Limited or slow communications would be attractive for an autocrat. In another thread on Burma I have commented that without imagery 24/7 news has a much reduced impact. Large chunks of the world are not on the 24/7 editors list.

Reducing international exposure is possible, although even the PRC has learnt not easy after rioting in Tibet was filmed by tourists and a BBC reporter on a holiday. Plus the ethnic rioting and state response in Urumchi.

Tourists are a mixed blessing, in Egypt the vast majority were miles away from the focal point, the cities, on beaches in Sinai and above all usually have little interaction with the locals. More problematic are the resident expats, especially if widely dispersed like preachers, NGO etc.

[davidbfpo]

From Open Democracy:

An audio interview in which Nabila Ramdani describes the role of the social networks in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions – to what extent are Morozov's and Gladwell's arguments proved wrong by events?

Closing sentences:

There will be numerous attempts to re-impose autocracies dominated self-styled leaders of the people. However, the biggest historical change highlighted by revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia is that these people are nowadays hugely well informed, questioning and technologically savvy.

This should be our greatest cause for optimism as we consider the future of the Arab world.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/tony-cu...-02-19%2005:30

[Bob's World]

Did Rome's roads matter in the rise of the Barbarians?

Did the invention of the printing press matter in the rise of the people of Europe against the Holy Roman Empire?

Did Britain's global telegraph network matter in the rise of her colonial populaces?

Did the internet matter in Tunisia and Egypt.

Answer to all: Yes.

When a state relies upon overt controls of a populace to maintain stability, the speed and availability of information is their greatest threat. As information and transportation technology continue to emerge, control-based systems of governance will continue to become less and less viable.

[Bill Moore]

Bob and David,

One of the points at least two leaders made about the recent uprisings in North Africa was that the people were no longer scared. I don't pretend to know why, but I think it is somewhat accurate that many Iranians and Chinese have access to information technology and are frustrated with their government, but are too scared to act due to the consequences. I think if these movements continue we'll see some rather harsh and bloody crackdowns.

I'm not sure any lessons have been learnt yet, but governments everywhere are probably considering strategies to counter this type of threat to their control. I think there are a lot of options, and again depending on the overall context of each situation those options will vary. In some cases as others have pointed out the government has already failed, it is like a rotten fruit that hasn't fallen from the tree yet and this tactic is the wind that brings it down.

[Fuchs]

LBJ and Gandhi aside I do wonder as autocratic states look around the scene what are the lessons learnt?

First and foremost electronic communication is so dangerous. If you are a developing autocratic state, would you want to allow this to develop?

related:
Trajan on the revolts in Tunisia (?)

It's not the communications, but the organising.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Fuches,

It's not the communications, but the organising.

The organizers agree with you that organization was critical, but the means they used to form a community (organize) to mobilize was Facebook. Not only did they effectively garner support from within Egypt, they garnered international support, which limited the options for the Gov of Egypt.

IT is important, yes it just a tool, just like strategic bombers, satellite communications, nuclear weapons, submarines, etc., but it is apparent that tools can make things possible that were not previously possible.

[Fuchs]

It should nevertheless be understood that it's not the communication tool, but the organising that counts. The absence of communication tools does no suppress self-organisation. It merely reduces the options of the people for self-organising themselves.

[Dayuhan]

The organizers agree with you that organization was critical, but the means they used to form a community (organize) to mobilize was Facebook. Not only did they effectively garner support from within Egypt, they garnered international support, which limited the options for the Gov of Egypt.

IT is important, yes it just a tool, just like strategic bombers, satellite communications, nuclear weapons, submarines, etc., but it is apparent that tools can make things possible that were not previously possible.

These things were previously possible, and were previously accomplished. There was no Facebook during the fall of Marcos in the Philippines, or during the popular revolts in Poland, Romania, et al. No Facebook during the French Revolution.

People use the tools they have. Now that we have mobile phones and internet it's hard to believe that people ever lived or rebelled without them... but they did. Focusing on Facebook and Twitter as enablers makes it all seem very modern, 5G, and open source, but they were and are only tools, and looking too much at the tools can distract from equally important factors.

Loss of fear is critical. These events typically start with small rallies, marches, etc. If the populace perceives that the government is not cracking down and that security forces seem reluctant to break up actions, the size rapidly surges, in a process that can take only days, even hours. These things don't just happen because popular disaffection rises, they happen because government control wanes. Both factors have to be in place for success.

[Jedburgh]

These things were previously possible, and were previously accomplished. There was no Facebook during the fall of Marcos in the Philippines, or during the popular revolts in Poland, Romania, et al. No Facebook during the French Revolution.

People use the tools they have. Now that we have mobile phones and internet it's hard to believe that people ever lived or rebelled without them... but they did. Focusing on Facebook and Twitter as enablers makes it all seem very modern, 5G, and open source, but they were and are only tools, and looking too much at the tools can distract from equally important factors....

The Economist, 17 Dec 11: How Luther went viral: Five centuries before Facebook and the Arab spring, social media helped bring about the Reformation

Modern society tends to regard itself as somehow better than previous ones, and technological advance reinforces that sense of superiority. But history teaches us that there is nothing new under the sun. Robert Darnton, an historian at Harvard University, who has studied information-sharing networks in pre-revolutionary France, argues that “the marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the internet.” Social media are not unprecedented: rather, they are the continuation of a long tradition. Modern digital networks may be able to do it more quickly, but even 500 years ago the sharing of media could play a supporting role in precipitating a revolution. Today’s social-media systems do not just connect us to each other: they also link us to the past.