Content deleted Content added
Aberdonian99 (talk | contribs) →Reasons for choosing to use civil resistance: New first sentence to the final para of this section. |
Agusbou2015 (talk | contribs) m Typo fixing, typo(s) fixed: Subequently → Subsequently using AWB |
||
Line 29:
==Effectiveness==
It is not easy to devise a method of proving the relative success of different methods of struggle. Often there are problems in identifying a given campaign as successful or otherwise. In 2008 Maria J. Stephan and [[Erica Chenoweth]] produced ''Why Civil Resistance Works'', the most thorough and detailed analysis of the rate of success of civil resistance campaigns, as compared to violent resistance campaigns. After looking at over 300 cases of both types of campaign, from 1900 to 2006, they concluded that "nonviolent resistance methods are likely to be more successful than violent methods in achieving strategic objectives". Their article noted particularly that "resistance campaigns that compel loyalty shifts among security forces and civilian bureaucrats are likely to succeed".<ref>Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict", ''International Security'', vol. 33, no. 1 (Summer 2008), p. 42. {{ISSN|0162-2889}}[http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18407/why_civil_resistance_works.html]. (See also their 2011 book, ''Why Civil Resistance Works'', listed below in the bibliography.)</ref>
The evidence of several of the 2011 uprisings, on the other hand, appears to provide contrasting pathways by which this logic may fail to materialise, with splits in the armed forces contributing towards civil war in Libya and Syria, and a shift in armed forces loyalty in Egypt failing to contribute towards enduring democratic reform.<ref>T. R. Davies, "The failure of strategic nonviolent action in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya and Syria: ‘political ju-jitsu’ in reverse", ''Global Change, Peace and Security'', vol. 26, no. 3 (2014), pp. 299–313. {{ISSN|1478-1158}} {{DOI|10.1080/14781158.2014.924916}}.</ref> Criticisms of the central thesis of ''Why Civil Resistance Works'' have included:
Line 41:
In his chapter on "Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" [[Martin Luther King]] gave a notably multi-faceted account of the various considerations, experiences and influences that constituted his "intellectual odyssey to nonviolence". By 1954 this had led to the intellectual conviction that "nonviolent resistance was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their quest for social justice."<ref>[[Martin Luther King]], ''Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story'', Ballantine Books, New York, 1960, p. 81.</ref>
Some have opted for civil resistance when they were in opposition to the government, but then have later, when in government, adopted or accepted very different policies and methods of action. For example, in one of her [[BBC]] [[Reith Lectures]], first broadcast in July 2011, [[Aung San Suu Kyi]], the pro-democracy campaigner in [[Myanmar]] (formerly Burma), stated: "Gandhi's teachings on non-violent civil resistance and the way in which he had put his theories into practice have become part of the working manual of those who would change authoritarian administrations through peaceful means. I was attracted to the way of non-violence, but not on moral grounds, as some believe. Only on practical political grounds."<ref>[[Aung San Suu Kyi]], second BBC Reith Lecture, "Dissent", first broadcast 5 July 2011, transcript available at [http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/2011_reith2.pdf BBC website].</ref>
==Relationship to other forms of power==
| |||