Why Chenoweth & Stephan are wrong about Non Violence

Non Violent movements can be more effective than Violent struggles. Consider Brexit. It was completely non-violent. By contrast, the violent struggle for Basque Independence has still not yielded fruit. Of course, it is ludicrous to call the Brexit  Campaign a Non Violent movement. But then it is ludicrous to call any movement Non Violent save one that protests War or the use of any sort physical coercive force for some high moral, spiritual, or scriptural reason. Thus 'Non Violence' as a political creed is associated with Conscientious Objection to military conscription and a feeble sort of protest against any type of military activity.

No doubt, some people may want to pretend that they are opposing a Fascist, Nazi, Communist, or Zionist-Gay-Lizard-People-from-Planet-X New World Order based on alien abductions and anal probes for good hardworking alcoholics in flyover States. Such people may speak of themselves as Non Violent activists so as not to give the AFT an excuse to raid the compounds where they live in connubial bliss with their barnyard animals. But then, in the Cities, there are others who endlessly plan to liberate hamsters from pet-shops who think of themselves as Che Guevara.

There have been some Movements which clearly succeeded- e.g. the Indian National Congress or the African National Congress- which deliberately spoke of 'Non Violence', perhaps because there is a common link in the peculiar politics of South Africa. However both Movements had a violent side. Gandhi was non-Violent, but Bose joined hands with Hitler and Tojo and led an army. Both had been Presidents of the INC. In South Africa, Oliver Tambo represented the violent struggle whereas Archbishop Tutu was wholly non-violent. The comparison, however, is somewhat unfair. The ANC was banned whereas the INC had always been intended to share power.

Non Violence did have a small space within totalitarian regimes. Stalin let Chertkov and one or two other 'Tolstoyans' live in peace while he was busy slaughtering Old Bolsheviks and anyone else who hadn't the sense to run away.

Sadly, there is an academic availability cascade based on the false notion that 'Non Violence' is a 'discipline' and that it can achieve magical results.

 As a case in point, back in 2012,  Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan published a book titled 'Why Civil Resistance Works- The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict''

The studied political movements between 1900 and 2006 and came to the conclusion that non-violent movements succeeded 53 percent of the time, even in only 3.5 percent of the population was actively involved, whereas violent movements succeeded at half that rate.

Interestingly, they don't consider the Indian Freedom Struggle to be an example of Non Violence winning through. This is foolish. Gandhian methods forged esprit de corps between Hindu politicians, and even a few Muslim ones, from across the sub-continent. This gave India a unitary and stable democratic character. Had there been no Gandhi, the British would still have left- perhaps somewhat earlier- but the successor states would have been numerous. The fact is after 1919, Indian politics was about who would inherit from, not who would kill, the British Umpire. Gandhi's strategy paid off. His acolytes could establish dynasties- if that is what they wanted to do- who would live in the mansions the Brits had built for themselves.  Jinnah's didn't. The 'barristocrat' politicians were sidelined. The Army ruled the roost.

The authors say 'Britain’s dwindling military resources' was the deciding factor for excluding India. The problem here is that Britain's military position was more parlous in 1920 because as their Chief of Staff wrote

 Don't forget, that the Middle East and Iran required Indian garrisons. Furthermore, note that the Army was afraid it wasn't strong enough even in England! because of the perceived internal threat from Labour and the Communists. Thankfully, Gandhi unconditionally surrendered a couple of months after Ireland got independence and a few weeks before Allenby forced the Brits to accept Egypt's independence. This is an example of Organized Non-Violence preventing the otherwise inevitable outcome of a spontaneous uprising based on widespread popular grievances.

Returning to the book under discussion, the authors opine that there are two reasons that non-violence is more effective-

1) commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target.

This is foolish. Only people who have a bee in their bonnet about non-violence or who believe 'legitimacy' is a real thing would be influenced in this way. But they still wouldn't do anything unless some incentive was provided. There can be very broad-based participation in a thing for virtue signalling purposes- e.g. C.N.D or 'Not in my Name' anti-War protests- but no change occurs unless that change changes nothing or one is pushing against an open door. Consider the current plight of the Dalai Lama. At one time World leaders were queueing up to meet him. Then China frowned and now he is a pariah.

2) Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.

But recognition that one might be penalized for such support, or that it might impose a non trifling cost, is sufficient to cause the polar opposite outcome. Look at the Palestinians. At one time everyone was saying- even Merkel, Sarkozy & Cameron- 'of course the Palestinians must get justice. That Netanyahu is a rogue'- but once Trump decided to back Netanyahu, and the Saudis told the Palestinians to shut up and concentrate of vilifying Iran- the Palestinians were left out in the cold even though they have been much better behaved than when Arafat was running around creating havoc.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.

This may have been a plausible view in 2012. But in Egypt, Turkey, China, Russia- even Hungary or Poland- the reverse seems to be the case. If a regime is supported by the majority at home it can do what it likes to 'non violent' movements. The British used 'cat and mouse' methods, as well as forcible feeding, against the Suffragettes. Though initially wary of mass arrests in India, Gandhi taught them they could incarcerate countless numbers without much in the way of repercussion. This was a lesson Mrs. Gandhi remembered. But for 'forcible sterilization', she would have won in 1977. The fact is non-violent politicians are a public nuisance. There is a side of us which experiences great schadenfreude when those windbags are locked up. Why? We suspect they may genuinely be virtuous. It is not that we object to there being people who are better than us. We'd just prefer them to be in jail or in exile rather than tramping the streets doing good to all whom they meet.

Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining.

Violent militants prevail if they want what the majority wants. Maximalist goals are fine and dandy. It is only holier-than-thou shite that scares us.

By contrast, determinedly moderate, meticulously organized, superbly trained, impressively coordinated Non-violent militants lose even if they want what the majority wants. Why? Because the other side studies their plan of action, finds its weak points, creates wedge issues and sets off a 'circular firing squad' of shriller and shriller virtue signalling and more and more toxic  'wokeness' till people turn against the thing.

The problem with this type of Social Science is that you can prove anything you like by misclassifying things. The fundamental problem here is that a Violent/Non-Violent dichotomy is not natural in political life any more than it is economic or social life. We don't normally speak of Violent or Non-Violent business transactions or Violent or Non-Violent pedagogy or cuisine or engineering. This is because the alternative to Violence is not Non Violence. It is surrender or indifference or just playing dumb. If you are good at Violence you go do it elsewhere for more money. If you are doing Non Violence then, chances are, you are getting some other type of pay-off unrelated to your supposed goal.

Our findings challenge the conventional wisdom that violent resistance against conventionally superior adversaries is the most effective way for resistance groups to achieve policy goals.

Violence is either successful or unsuccessful. 'Conventionally superior' just means you haven't found the other guy's choke point or chink in the armor. There has to be a 'discovery' process. If successful it is a very effective way of achieving policy goals though doing so may prove to be a terrible mistake. The problem is that violence may itself be a type of virtue signalling just like non-violence. It is indulged in precisely because it can't succeed. It is 'ontologically dysphoric'- i.e. not at home in this world.

Instead, we assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents, and at times can do so more effectively than violent resistance. 

This is foolish. Violence is a learned skill and is expensive. Spontaneous movements may succeed if people aren't simply virtue signalling. Organized movements may fail even if the masses support the cause and no virtue signalling is involved. Why? Organization means planning and the other side can game your plan.

The authors quote Thomas Schelling-  “[The] tyrant and his subjects are in somewhat symmetrical positions. They can deny him most of what he wants—they can, that is, if they have the disciplined organization to refuse collaboration. And he can deny them just about everything they want—he can deny it by using the force at his command. . . . They can deny him the satisfaction of ruling a disciplined country, he can deny them the satisfaction of ruling themselves. . . . It is a bargaining situation in which either side, if adequately disciplined and organized, can deny most of what the other wants, and it remains to see who wins.”
Sharon Nepstad has pointed out that tyrants can out maneuver resisters. Nepstad might add- only if resisters are 'disciplined, organized' and 'refuse collaboration'. In that case, the tyrant's spies know their plan and can find ways of using their strength against them. On the other hand, if everybody is an unctuous 'Good Soldier Schweik', then a spontaneous revolt- as against Ceausescu- succeeds. The secret police never saw it coming because it wasn't there to be seen. Mubarak didn't see what was coming because the Brotherhood wasn't involved. Sisi sent the Brotherhood packing. He's a smart guy. Mubarak wasn't. The army didn't like his sons and so they ditched him.

The authors present 3 case studies- East Timor, Marcos's Philippines and Myanmar. In the first two cases, Washington pulled the plug after the Communist menace receded and even the indigenous ruling elite grew alarmed at the Leader's family's greed. In Myanmar you had a crazy general who could be sidelined after the Communist threat receded. But there was no transition to anything because Ne Win's nice-guy successor was himself sidelined and the Army hard-liners reasserted themselves. It remains to be seen whether Aung San Suu Kyi can assert herself as a champion of Buddhism- a subject of which she has great academic and personal knowledge.

I won't deny that violence had great prestige in the Sixties and Seventies. In Burma, there was the belief that 'Browderism' was evil. Communism must never triumph by peaceful means. If you don't wade through a sea of blood you aren't really Red.
Equally, it must be admitted, there was a time when Catholics- and some Buddhists- genuinely felt that the only good Red was a dead Red. Catholicism changed its mind. The ferocious anti-Communists changed their mind. Pepsi Cola was being promoted by the Kremlin as an alternative to Vodka. Mao was giving away cuddly Panda bears. Then, quite suddenly, people were getting rich off Communist or ex-Communist countries. Not Non-Violence, but Chrematistics- Wealth- won the ideological wars.