Nonviolent popular demonstrations are common in the modern world. Only a few succeed. What accounts for these different outcomes? Why can some movements overthrow oppressive social and political structures peacefully, while some require violence to succeed, and some are ultimately unsuccessful?
Three main conditions must be present for a nonviolent movement to be successful: the movement must gain the moral high ground, they must demonstrate this to rally widespread popular support, and the power of the society must be concentrated in the hands of ethical people.
Movements always begin small. In order to gain support, a movement must demonstrate that their vision is morally superior to the status quo. To do so, the movement must both demonstrate the inherent evils of the society and their own virtues.
In 1961, college students of both races traveled to the Deep South on public buses to challenge segregation. These “Freedom Rides” exposed the brutality of the Jim Crow Laws and the racist social order that enforced them while demonstrating their own commitment to nonviolence. The Freedom Riders faced threats, physical assault, hospitalization, jail, and nearly being burned alive while in the Deep South. Despite all of this abuse, the Freedom Riders refused to retaliate. (Freedom Riders) This violent reaction to seemingly small social offenses gave the Civil Rights Movement much broader support and forced the federal government to intervene in support of the Freedom Riders.
The moral high ground is easier to lose than to gain. The Civil Rights Movement lost much of their moral high ground because of the Black Power movement’s acceptance of violence. This violence, explicitly manifested in the riots following Martin Luther King’s death, turned much of the American populace away from the cause of racial equality and hindered the progress of civil rights.
Another example of the importance of the moral high ground can be found by comparing the Al Qaeda’s jihadist movement to the Arab Spring. Al Qaeda’s focus on violence and its willingness to target Muslims has impeded the jihadist movement. The Arab Spring’s primarily peaceful processes promote popular patronage, magnify the abuses of their governments, and win international aid. (Bomberg) These differences explain why the Arab Spring has proven much more effective at forcing political change than Al Qaeda.
Demonstrating moral principles and gaining popular support does not ensure success. If the society is not controlled by ethical people, the government may commit or tolerate large-scale human rights violations to suppress the movement. This suppression can crush the movement completely. However, if a large majority of the society supports the movement, they can violently overthrow the oppressive government and remake the society.
The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 demonstrate how an amoral government can violently overwhelm a peaceful movement. Although the protesters had demonstrated their peaceful intentions to gain popular sympathy, they did not have enough support to orchestrate a violent revolution. When the Chinese military massacred the protesters, they were forced to disband. The vision these protesters had of a democratic China has yet to be fulfilled.
A comparison of Arab Spring countries can also show how different power structures affect the course of mass movements. In Egypt, the most powerful institution, the military, refused to fire on the protesters and ultimately forced President Mubarak to resign. In Libya, the military was willing to follow the government’s orders to assault the protesters. However, the antigovernment movement had already garnered enough support, both within Libya and internationally, to violently overthrow Colonel Qaddafi. This movement has already ousted the government and is currently attempting to make a new society that fulfills their vision.
In order for a nonviolent mass movement to succeed, three main conditions must be met. The movement must prove that they are more virtuous than the status quo, they must demonstrate this to gain popular support, and the society they are trying to change must be controlled by ethical people. If any of these conditions are not met, a purely nonviolent movement cannot succeed.
Works Cited:
Bomberg, Ian. "The Arab Spring Threatens Al Qaeda." Center for American Progress. 11 May 2011. Web. 13 Sept. 2011.
Freedom Riders. Dir. Stanley Nelson. Prod. American Experience. 2011. Film.
Three main conditions must be present for a nonviolent movement to be successful: the movement must gain the moral high ground, they must demonstrate this to rally widespread popular support, and the power of the society must be concentrated in the hands of ethical people.
Movements always begin small. In order to gain support, a movement must demonstrate that their vision is morally superior to the status quo. To do so, the movement must both demonstrate the inherent evils of the society and their own virtues.
In 1961, college students of both races traveled to the Deep South on public buses to challenge segregation. These “Freedom Rides” exposed the brutality of the Jim Crow Laws and the racist social order that enforced them while demonstrating their own commitment to nonviolence. The Freedom Riders faced threats, physical assault, hospitalization, jail, and nearly being burned alive while in the Deep South. Despite all of this abuse, the Freedom Riders refused to retaliate. (Freedom Riders) This violent reaction to seemingly small social offenses gave the Civil Rights Movement much broader support and forced the federal government to intervene in support of the Freedom Riders.
The moral high ground is easier to lose than to gain. The Civil Rights Movement lost much of their moral high ground because of the Black Power movement’s acceptance of violence. This violence, explicitly manifested in the riots following Martin Luther King’s death, turned much of the American populace away from the cause of racial equality and hindered the progress of civil rights.
Another example of the importance of the moral high ground can be found by comparing the Al Qaeda’s jihadist movement to the Arab Spring. Al Qaeda’s focus on violence and its willingness to target Muslims has impeded the jihadist movement. The Arab Spring’s primarily peaceful processes promote popular patronage, magnify the abuses of their governments, and win international aid. (Bomberg) These differences explain why the Arab Spring has proven much more effective at forcing political change than Al Qaeda.
Demonstrating moral principles and gaining popular support does not ensure success. If the society is not controlled by ethical people, the government may commit or tolerate large-scale human rights violations to suppress the movement. This suppression can crush the movement completely. However, if a large majority of the society supports the movement, they can violently overthrow the oppressive government and remake the society.
The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 demonstrate how an amoral government can violently overwhelm a peaceful movement. Although the protesters had demonstrated their peaceful intentions to gain popular sympathy, they did not have enough support to orchestrate a violent revolution. When the Chinese military massacred the protesters, they were forced to disband. The vision these protesters had of a democratic China has yet to be fulfilled.
A comparison of Arab Spring countries can also show how different power structures affect the course of mass movements. In Egypt, the most powerful institution, the military, refused to fire on the protesters and ultimately forced President Mubarak to resign. In Libya, the military was willing to follow the government’s orders to assault the protesters. However, the antigovernment movement had already garnered enough support, both within Libya and internationally, to violently overthrow Colonel Qaddafi. This movement has already ousted the government and is currently attempting to make a new society that fulfills their vision.
In order for a nonviolent mass movement to succeed, three main conditions must be met. The movement must prove that they are more virtuous than the status quo, they must demonstrate this to gain popular support, and the society they are trying to change must be controlled by ethical people. If any of these conditions are not met, a purely nonviolent movement cannot succeed.
Works Cited:
Bomberg, Ian. "The Arab Spring Threatens Al Qaeda." Center for American Progress. 11 May 2011. Web. 13 Sept. 2011.
Freedom Riders. Dir. Stanley Nelson. Prod. American Experience. 2011. Film.
I think the most successful way of protesting in a movement is without a doubt nonviolent. I believe that if a movement turns violent for whichever reason, then it has lost, not only the moral ground, but the reasoning to be protesting in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Leon. If a movement turns violent, it will lose the support of the average person. However if the government turns violent on the movement, that brings up another issue entirely. Civilians being killed or harmed by a group not affiliated with a government makes it a problem for that nation, but when a government group harms civilians, the issue becomes a global issue. And when it becomes a global issue, I would not say it is impossible to attain the reform that is desired, but it gets a whole lot messier.
ReplyDeleteWhat then should a movement that has gained overwhelming popular support do if the government is willing to massacre them and the international community is unresponsive?
ReplyDeleteI concur with the fact that a non-violent movement is the best course of action.
ReplyDeleteWhen India was fighting to escape the jaws of the British rule, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi proposed 'ahimsa' or non-violence in campaigning against the British. This proposed course of action helped in mobilizing the masses and Gandhi attained widespread popularity. Later, Gandhi was decisive in helping India achieve Independence.