Civil resistance: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m →‎Historical examples: Minor corrections of recent additions to conform with style & add a link.
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 ''a widely-noted article on "Why Civil Resistance Works''", the most thorough and detailed analysis (to that date) 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 (later developed into a book) 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>
 
TheOn the other hand, the evidence of several of the 2011 uprisings, onin the otherMiddle hand,East and North Africa 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 the book on ''Why Civil Resistance Works'' have included:
# 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>