
The Success of Nonviolent Civil Resistance - ozdave
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/success-nonviolent-civil-resistance/
======
skrebbel
Sidenote: if you're ever a dictator somewhere, move your capital away from the
big population centers. Invent some nutcase reason like "God told me to do it
in a dream". Make sure that most inhabitants of your new capital are civil
servants, whose livelihoods directly depend on your government's stability.
Civil Resistance, violent or not, will be significantly less effective.

Eg Naypidaw (Myanmar), Astana / Nur-Sultan[1] (Kazachstan), Brasilia,
Islamabad (Pakistan), Ciudad de la Paz (Equatorial Guinea), etc.

I'm not sure if there's statistically sufficiently many capitals-in-the-
middle-of-nowhere but I bet there's a direct correlation between "capital is
also the major population center" and "success rate of uprisings". It even
holds for functioning democracies. I don't think the "yellow vests" people in
Paris would've had a similar impact in Australia, where the government is
comfortably far away from Where People Live.

[1] Woa check the new name! It's like renaming Washington DC to "Donald". [2]

[2] EDIT: Omg I just realized that George Washington did exactly that. Some
ego! I had always assumed that it had been founded/named long after Washington
was dead, but nothing like that was the case. It's really the "Trump Hotel" of
cities.

~~~
baybal2
[1] Checked it, writing from there, and probably will be for few more months.

Been selling widgets to rapid transit company there. Can't wait to go back to
China, but it seems that there is a new local client on the horizon =(

~~~
skrebbel
Wow, what was the popular response to the name change?

China can't stay behind now, can they? Can't wait for Beijing to be renamed to
Jinping.

~~~
baybal2
> what was the popular response to the name change?

There was a ~15-20 people scuffle few weeks later, and 1 day without Internet.
Nothing though on the day of the renaming. Locals more or less grew apathetic
to the idea of ruling elites being a joke over last 30 years. Some I'd say
even like it that way, saying that "Imagine our joke president for life
would've been a proper dictator, like somebody as sharp as that Paul Kagami
dude, no, things are better this way"

------
nsoonhui
The nonviolent civil resistance is only effective when your opponent is a
regime that is beholden to the opinion of its people or of the world. For
oppressive opponents who don't actually care very much about human rights,
nonviolent resistance is simply ineffective at all.

~~~
taneq
Exactly. Ghandi was very brave, it's true, but his success in India says as
much about the British as it does about the power of nonviolence. Try the same
stunt against ISIS or North Korea and you'll only achieve being shot out of
hand.

~~~
crispinb
I have a feeling you haven't read much British colonial history. Amritsar?
Boer concentration camps? Indian emancipation had nothing to do with British
goodness. It had much to do with mass uprisings, clever tactics, and more than
a few blown-up railway lines.

~~~
Veen
The grandfather comment said and implied nothing about British goodness. It
was a pragmatic decision.

~~~
crispinb
I read taneq's (admittedly sketchy) comment as suggesting that the Gandhian
part of the Indian independence struggle was effective not because of its
nonviolent tactics, but because of the relatively benign nature of British
colonial governance.

------
cies
Next thing destruction of property is also called violence.

Let's think of the abolition of slavery as an example. This was a huge,
important change that came about by civil resistance: slave owners were mostly
backed by law during the period of resistance.

It was not non-violent, especially if destruction of property (e.g. freeing a
slave) is counted as an act of violence against the slave owner/ law. I do not
believe this change was easier to provoke non-violently and/or non-property-
destructively.

~~~
tim333
If you are going to count freeing slaves as violent then you have an odd
definition of violence.

~~~
cies
It was "loss of property" by law... It's not my def, it's the def-by-law of
those days.

------
cf141q5325
The statement about the successrate is based on the following database

>To these ends, we constructed the Nonviolent andViolent Conºict Outcomes
(NAVCO) data set, which includes aggregate dataon 323 violent and nonviolent
resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006.35

>The NAVCO data set contains a sample of resistance campaigns based on
consensus data ofscholars of both violent and nonviolent conºict. Resistance
campaigns include campaigns for do-mestic regime change, against foreign
occupations, or for secession or self-determination. Omittedfrom the data set
are major social and economic campaigns, such as the civil rights movement
andthe populist movement in the United States. To gain inclusion into the
NAVCO data set, the cam-paign must have a major and disruptive political
objective, such as the ending of a current politicalregime, a foreign
occupation, or secession. About ten campaigns (four nonviolent and six
violent)did not ªt into any of these categories but were nevertheless included
in the data set. The codingscheme assumes that each campaign has a uniªed
goal, but most campaigns have multiple fac-tions. The dynamics created by
these circumstances will be further explored in a later study

[https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file...](https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf)

[https://www.du.edu/korbel/sie/research/chenow_navco_data.htm...](https://www.du.edu/korbel/sie/research/chenow_navco_data.html)

~~~
Joeboy
So it seems like you need some proprietary thing called Stata 11 to see the
data. I think I'm just going to continue being profoundly sceptical.

~~~
danso
Stata is a pretty entrenched tool (never figured out myself what past
colleagues got from using it, other than it was just what they had been
trained on), but luckily there are software libraries that make it easy to
import and then export to something else, such as R's `foreign`:

[https://www.statmethods.net/input/importingdata.html](https://www.statmethods.net/input/importingdata.html)

------
jcims
This seems incomplete.

Humans and most animals tend to naturally resist along a spectrum (sometimes
referred to as the force continuum), and for most that spectrum will include
violence at the extreme end.

Nonviolent civil resistance scales tends to scale more quickly because there
is less at stake for the individual participants under most circumstances. But
it's still resistance, and still an indicator that some percentage of the
populace has less tolerance for provocation before things begin to turn
violent. That's where i think at least some of the effectiveness of the
nonviolent approach comes from...the threat of a lot more people turning
violent.

About the only thing I would take away from this is that if I want to organize
resistance, it might be more effective to spend time marketing it and scaling
horizontally first than to flame out on a skirmish and scare possible
supporters off. Once the tribe starts to grow, however, it becomes much easier
to turn up the heat when necessary.

Also, no tiki torches.

------
cf141q5325
A while back I read "The failure of non violence" by Peter Gelderloos on the
topic who argued for the opposite. Not an academic work but I found it
interesting to read about a different point of view.

~~~
brlewis
I skimmed the first 6 pages here:
[https://web.stanford.edu/group/peacejustice/Gelderloos-
Failu...](https://web.stanford.edu/group/peacejustice/Gelderloos-Failure-of-
Nonviolence.pdf)

It seems he's arguing that a diversity of tactics is more effective than
nonviolence alone. Chenoweth's methodology if I understand correctly was to
divide a lot of civil resistance campaigns into violent and nonviolent, and
compare the success of the two groupings.

It's possible that they're both right, that a diversity of tactics wins, but
is more likely to win when that diversity is skewed toward nonviolence.

------
chiefalchemist
I read it best put in the book "Blueprint for Revolution" (which, believe it
or not, was mentioned in Adam Grants' "Originals").

Long to short, Popovic wrote: nonviolence is more successful because it casts
a wider / deeper net. Adding violence to your tactic severely reduces the
number who will embrace and participate in your change movement.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution)

~~~
tokai
A black bloc uncle old me once, that in political struggle you need a militant
and a civil/political branch. With as little direct connection between the two
as possible. One of his reasons was the one you pointed out. The other that
the persons that participates in violent struggle, are a bad fit for dialogue
and building something lasting up afterwards.

------
bjourne
This is probably the reason why the Israeli state is so fearful of the BDS
movement. Violent resistance is easy to quell, but reduced trade due to the
boycott is harder to do something about. It is also hard to motivate how
people exercising their right to not purchase goods for ethical reasons are
acting in bad faith.

I believe that is how South Africa's Apartheid system was brought down. The
ANC actually engaged in terrorism - but that wasn't what ended the system - it
was the global economic boycott.

------
devoply
Nonviolent or violent civil resistance can easily be co-opted by other actors
like the CIA or KGB for their own nefarious agendas. Be wary of being pawns
for assholes. Transforming your country into a liberal, democratic country
requires the fact the country evolved itself into some sort of democracy. Not
someone forced that on you through a manufactured war or revolution.

~~~
chriselles
CIA covertly backed Solidarity with non violent aid.

In that specific ring fences example, did anyone outside of the Soviet/Polish
regimes have issue with it then or since?

Would any/many Poles consider it a mistake or criticise the effort or result?

~~~
crispinb
Same with Serbia's Otpor! IIRC there was a fair bit of criticism of them
within Serbia for taking American (if not CIA?) funding, and who knows whether
that specific act was the right decision. But the did get rid of Milosevic,
remarkably peacefully given the nature of the regime.

~~~
chriselles
I had Otpor! Co-founder Srdja Popovic as a lecturer for a Harvard/JFK School
course on non violent social change.

It was a really interesting opportunity to learn from someone who has actually
led non violent social change, rather than just researching/writing about it.

A bit like YC compared to other accelerators. Experience doing over talking.

Optor’s ‘Laughtivism” Strategy was quite creative and funny.

While it was never discussed, I suspect you may be right about Otpor’s sources
of funding.

It could be disinformation, but it could also be true.

~~~
crispinb
Yes well, that's real-world experience in spades - actually taking part in
deposing a regime!

------
hprotagonist
_We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would
present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of
the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we
decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of
workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to
accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of
jail?"_

[https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)

------
challenger22
History class in U.S. high schools greatly emphasize the success of nonviolent
protest, and it was surprising to me that they actually are twice as
effective. I had recently come to the conclusion that this history lesson was
mostly an intended plan to indoctrinate people away from tendencies to perform
violent protest; it is nice to see that it is actually measureably correct.

------
chriselles
Solidarity in Poland would be an outstanding example of successful non violent
civil resistance that was a catalyst for a cascade of largely(but not
entirely) non violent revolutions across Eastern Europe and Russia between
89-91.

It is also a successful example of external non-violent support as the CIA
provided strictly non violent support in the form of cash, communication,
printing, and copying equipment and supplies.

Largely shipped covertly via Swedish maritime cargo and other means.

The key learning point, especially for governments interested in interfering
in the affairs of other countries, is that it requires a committed and
motivated existing and self sustaining organisation.

In the case of Solidarity/Poland, CIA simply provided some additional momentum
to what already existed.

Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan also provides considerable moral
support and political capital to put the spotlight on the existent Solidarity.

Not only are non violent movements twice as successful(on average) than
violent revolutions, but they are also more sustainable/resilient.

There was an excellent course run out of Harvard JFK School called “Leading
Non-Violent Movements for Social Change”.

It was led by Srdja Popovic, founder of Otpor! that helped remove Milosevic
fro. Power in Serbia.

Check out CANVAS: [https://canvasopedia.org/](https://canvasopedia.org/)

Great free resources.

~~~
jcora
> Not only are non violent movements twice as successful(on average)

This is a meaningless comparison because they aim at entirely different
things. The French revolution was different than the fall of communism.

Funny enough, the October revolution was also largely a non-violent event,
with just a few casualties. The ensuing Civil War, however...

~~~
chriselles
It is a perfectly meaningful comparison.

A domestic, intrinsically motivated movement, supported externally with non
violent diplomatic, financial, and moral aid, acted as a catalyst to the
largely non violent removal of many authoritarian repressive regimes.

All of which have largely avoided civil war with the exception of Ukraine due
to a resurgent Russia responding to excessive NATO expansion.

Former Yugoslavia doesn’t count as it excluded itself from the Soviet Warsaw
Pact sphere Nd attempted non alignment.

~~~
jcora
Okay? You haven't shown that it's a meaningful _comparison_. What does it mean
for nonviolent movements to be "twice as successful"? Nothing, because you can
construct any arbitrary measure of movement or success.

~~~
chriselles
It's actually quite simple and easy.

Did a fundamental shift in incumbent political power occur? Yes/No

Was that fundamental shift away from the previous incumbent political power
sustainable, or did it fall as well(after X time)? Yes/No

I sincerely hope I'm not coming across in an unintentionally rude or abrasive
way, if so, I apologise.

To be honest, you kind of are.

------
Theodores
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

So you can have a 'violent' movement that does not get round to using
violence. The movement can be effective enough to not need to fire a single
shot.

Because of this it is a bit silly to compare and categorise non-violent vs.
violent resistance.

If you read The Art Of War then the keep the powder dry idea is quite key to
winning. Timing and leadership matters more. How many 'leaderless' movements,
e.g. Extinction Rebellion, Occupy Wall Street etc. have got anywhere?
Precisely zero.

Modern day capitalism demands war and terrorism. It is all part of the
illusion. Over the centuries UK/US interests have got to be good at it. The
terrorism meme invariably gets rolled out but no genuine resistance movements
ever use terror tactics. It is a sure way to lose popular support. The
distinction between sabotage and terrorism isn't widely appreciated. So
although 'burning down the parliament building' might be a perfectly valid act
of sabotage it will always be an act of terror in the media whether it is Guy
Fawkes or Hitler doing it.

I would be more interested in knowing what resistance movements succeeded
based on their counter surveillance skills. If a movement has a non English
language and other culture that is hard for spies to learn then success is
much more likely.

------
baybal2
The article says that nonviolent civil resistance is effective

But truth is that nonviolent civil resistance is not effective. The few
"regimes" that were "toppled" by it never stood in ranks of real regimes, or
were at their dying breath.

I wish authors of the article ever told that to Ugandans, North Koreans, and
after all Chinese.

China sees sporadic riots nearly weekly (which are almost never covered by
Western press.) I'd say that as a percentage of population, the amount of
people who ever raised a hand on policeman/official person and served term
should be around 5-7%.

That was way higher in eighties when forced sterilisation campaign was at its
peak (imagine men having to stand still while a communist pokes his dirty
finger into their wives'...)

~~~
fiala__
Literally the first sentence of the video description:

> Between 1900-2006, campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance were twice as
> successful as violent campaigns.

You're just saying "No." without providing anything more than an opinion and
some anecdotal evidence. You're absolutely right that under many oppressive
regimes like China pretty much _any_ kind of protest beside outright civil war
is suppressed, but that doesn't defeat the point of the article.

Also, saying things like

> dirty communist pokes his finger ...

really doesn't help you here.

~~~
baybal2
> but that doesn't defeat the point of the article.

It does, very much. Read what is my point above. What argument they have
against that?

Their reasoning is shallow, their data is very meticulously gathered, but is
nevertheless massaged, and people behind the report... take a look at their
bios and judge yourself.

I have a lot of anger for types of people calling for peaceful sit ins when
crowds are already being showered by machine gun fire. Those share the blame
for people's deaths as much as regimes doing the killing.

Doing that is an advocacy for moral frailty.

