Civil resistance: Difference between revisions

#Civil resistance is often a response to changes in constellations of power. Leaders of civil resistance campaigns have often been acutely aware of power-political developments, both domestic and international.<ref>Schock, ''Unarmed Insurrections'', pp. 154–56.</ref> In some countries there has been a growth of civil opposition after, and perhaps in part because of, an occupying or colonial state's internal political turmoil or setbacks in war: for example, this was a key factor in the Finnish struggle of 1898–1905 against Russian control.<ref>Steven Duncan Huxley, ''Constitutional Insurgency in Finland: Finnish "Passive Resistance" against Russification as a Case of Nonmilitary Struggle in the European Resistance Tradition'', SHS, Helsinki, 1990, p. 225, where Jonas Castrén, a key figure in the constitutional insurgency, is cited as emphasizing the central importance of understanding current events in Russia and their importance for the Finnish struggle. "He exclaimed that now was the time for Finns to rise up in mass struggle."</ref> In other countries the problems faced by their own armed forces, whether against conventional armies or guerrillas, played some part in the development of civil resistance: for example, in the [[People Power Revolution]] in the Philippines in 1983–86.<ref>Amado Mendoza, "‘People Power'" in the Philippines, 1983–86’ in Roberts and Garton Ash, [https://books.google.com/books?id=BxOQKrCe7UUC&dq=Civil+resistance+and+power+politics&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''Civil Resistance and Power Politics''], pp. 179–96, where he discusses at pp. 186–89 the competitive relationship between the violent and non-violent anti-dictatorship movements.</ref>

#Civil resistance campaigns frequently lead to a situation of partial stalemate, in which negotiation between civil resisters and those in positions of governmental power is perceived as essential. Hence, "round table talks" were critically important in the Indian independence struggle up to 1947, in [[Polish Round Table Talks|Solidarity's campaign in Poland up to 1989]], and in Ukraine in 2004.<ref>These three cases of round table talks are outlined by Judith Brown, Alexander Smolar and Andrew Wilson respectively in Roberts and Garton Ash, [https://books.google.com/books?id=BxOQKrCe7UUC&dq=Civil+resistance+and+power+politics&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''Civil Resistance and Power Politics''], pp. 47, 55 (India), 136–43 (Poland), and 350–53 (Ukraine).</ref>

#Some non-violent campaigns can be seen as reluctant or unwitting harbingers of violence. They may be followed by the emergence of groups using armed force and/or by military intervention from outside the territory concerned. This can happen if, for example, they (a) are perceived as failures, or (b) are repressed with extreme violence, or (c) succeed in removing a regime but then leave a power vacuum in its place. Processes of the first two of these kinds happened, for example, in [[Northern Ireland]] in 1967–72 and in [[Kosovo]] in the 1990s.<ref>Cases of perceived failure of civil resistance being followed by armed campaigns and military intervention are outlined by Richard English and Howard Clark in Roberts and Garton Ash, [https://books.google.com/books?id=BxOQKrCe7UUC&dq=Civil+resistance+and+power+politics&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''Civil Resistance and Power Politics''], pp. 75–90 (Northern Ireland) and 277–94 (Kosovo).</ref> Processes of the third kind, involving some forms of power vacuum, included [[Libya]] from 2011 onwards, and [[Yemen]] from 2012 onwards.<ref>Cases of armed interventions in areas where there had been an absence of governance in at least parts of a country are outlined by George Joffé and Helen Lackner in Roberts, Willis, McCarthy and Garton Ash, ''Civil Resistance in the Arab Spring: Triumphs and Disasters'', pp. 134–40 (Libya) and 160–68 (Yemen).</ref> The possibility of such developments can be an inducement to a government to bargain with a non-violent movement before things get out of hand. However, in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011 and after, campaigns by civil resistance movements were followed by violent internal conflict and civil war, often with the involvement of external forces: Syria is the most tragic case.<ref>[[International Institute for Strategic Studies]], ''Strategic Survey 2013'', London, 2013, pp. 179–84.</ref> [[File:Vaclav Havel IMF.jpg|thumb|[[Václav Havel]], impresario of civil resistance in the years leading up to the 1989 [[Velvet Revolution]]. In April 1991, as President of post-Communist Czechoslovakia, he praised the NATO military alliance; and on 12 March 1999 the Czech Republic (with Havel still as President) joined the alliance. He is seen here on 26 September 2000. ''Photo: IMF'']]

#There have also been some cases of certain uses of force by civil resistance movements, whether against their adversaries, or to maintain internal discipline. For example, on 2 February 2011, in the generally peaceful [[2011 Egyptian Revolution|Egyptian struggle against President Mubarak]], some groups among the crowds in [[Tahrir Square]] in Cairo did use certain forms of force for a defensive purpose when they were attacked by pro-regime thugs, some of whom were riding on horses and camels.<ref>Mustafa Khalili, ‘The two sets of protesters were left to fight it out,’ ''The Guardian'', London, 3 February 2011, provides an eye-witness account of the events of 2 February. Also available at [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/02/cairo-clashes].</ref> In the subsequent days the crowds in Tahrir Square reverted to using non-violent methods.

==The term "civil resistance": merits and concerns==

[[File:Gandhi suit.jpg|thumb|[[Mohandas K. Gandhi|Gandhi]] in South Africa in about 1906–1909. Referring to his years there, he later wrote: "... I found that even civil disobedience failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I therefore adopted the phrase civil resistance."]]The term is not new. [[Mohandas K. Gandhi|Gandhi]] used it in many of his writings.<ref>[[Mohandas K. Gandhi]], "The Momentous Issue", ''Young India'', 10 November 1921; in ''Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi'', electronic edition, vol. 25, pp. 76–78. [http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL025.PDF]</ref> In 1935 he wrote: "... I found that even civil disobedience failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I therefore adopted the phrase civil resistance."<ref>[[Mohandas K. Gandhi]], letter to P. Kodanda Rao, 10 September 1935; in ''Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi'', electronic edition, vol. 67, p. 400.[http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL067.PDF]</ref> It is a near-synonym for [[nonviolent resistance]], [[civil disobedience]], [[People Power Revolution|people power]] and [[satyagraha]]. While each of these terms has its uses and connotations, "civil resistance" is one appropriate term to use in cases where the resistance has a civic quality, relating to a society as a whole; where the action involved is not necessarily disobedience, but instead involves supporting the norms of a society against usurpers; where the decision not to use violent methods is not based on a general philosophy of [[nonviolence]], but on a wide range of prudential, ethical and legal considerations; and where the technical and communications infrastructure of modern civil societies provides a means of organizing resistance.<ref>Fabien Miard, ''Mobile Phones as a Tool for Civil Resistance: Case Studies from Serbia and Belarus'', DigiActive Research Series, June 2009.

 

What exactly are the advantages of the term "civil resistance", as distinct from its near-synonyms "non-violent action" and "[[non-violent resistance]]"? All these terms have merits, and refer to largely the same phenomena. Indeed, there is a long history, in many languages, of using a wide variety of terms to describe these phenomena. The term "civil resistance" has been used increasingly for two main reasons:

#It conveys, more effectively perhaps than such terms as "[[nonviolent resistance]]", that a movement's avoidance of violence in pursuit of a particular cause is not necessarily tied to a general belief in "[[nonviolence]]" in all circumstances, nor to a philosophy of "[[Gandhism]]", but rather arises from the particular values and circumstances of the society concerned.

 

 

==See also==