Content deleted Content added
Aberdonian99 (talk | contribs) m →Historical examples: Minor corrections of recent additions to conform with style & add a link. |
Aberdonian99 (talk | contribs) m →Effectiveness: clarification that the 2008 publication was an article, not a book. Clarification re 2011 uprisings. |
||
Line 31:
==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
# Forming judgements about whether a campaign is a success or failure is inherently difficult: the answer may depend on the time-frame used, and on necessarily subjective judgments about what constitutes success. Some of the authors' decisions on this are debatable. Similar difficulties arise in deciding whether a campaign is violent or non-violent, when on the ground both strategies may co-exist in several ways.<ref>Juan Masullo Jimenez, review of ''Why Civil Resistance Works'' on ''Global Policy'' website, 29 November 2013. [http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/29/11/2013/book-review-why-civil-resistance-works-strategic-logic-nonviolent-conflict-erica-che].</ref>
# Regimes transitioning from autocracy to democracy tend to be highly unstable, so an initial success for a movement may be followed by a more general failure.<ref>David Cortright, review on E-International Relations website, 17 January 2013. [http://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/17/review-why-civil-resistance-works/]</ref>
|