PO377 ETHNIC CONFLICT AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE Week 13: Non-Violent Strategies for Change

Lecture Outline  Defining ‘Ethnic Conflict’  What is Non-Violent Action?  Categories of non-violent action  Principled vs. pragmatic non-violence  Things to bear in mind  Famous Practitioners  Gandhi  Martin Luther King, Jr.  Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance  Can Non-Violent Action Bring About Change?  Why civil resistance works  Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict  Summary

Defining ‘Ethnic Conflict’  Ethnic conflicts are conflicts ‘in which the goals of at least one conflict party are defined in (exclusively) ethnic terms, and in which the primary fault line of confrontation is one of ethnic distinctions’ (Wolff 2007: 2).  However we can distinguish between violent and non-violent ethnic conflict (Varshney 2007) and the latter can be further distinguished into:  institutionalised forms of ethnic protest (e.g. in the context of electoral politics) and  Non-violent actions outside of (formally) institutionalised political channels [this is what we are interested in today].

What is Non-Violent Action?  Nonviolent strategies for change include strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, protests, marches, petitions, walk-outs, law breaking, mock funerals.... Gandhi on the Salt March protests in London against the invasion of Iraq

What is Non-Violent Action? (2)  ‘Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social, psychological, economic, and political means without the threat or use of violence’ (Stephan and Chenoweth 2008: 7).  Defining features of nonviolent action (Schock 2005): 1) Does not involve physical violence or the threat of physical violence against human beings; 2) Involves activity in the collective pursuit of social or political objectives; 3) Is non-institutional and indeterminate.

What is Non-Violent Action? (3) Categories of non-violent action (Sharp 1973)  methods of protest and persuasion: largely symbolic, intended to persuade the opponent or to produce awareness of injustices and the extent of dissent (e.g. protests, marches, mock funerals);  methods of non-cooperation: intended to undermine the power, resources and legitimacy of the government (e.g. strikes, economic boycotts, acts of civil disobedience);  methods of non-violent intervention: intended to directly disrupt operations that support the status quo or to develop preferred alternatives (e.g. sit-ins, sabotage, creating parallel institutions).

What is Non-Violent Action? (4) Principled vs. pragmatic non-violence  principled non-violence: ‘grounded in religious and ethically based injunctions against violence’ (Stephan and Chenoweth 2008: 10); non-violence as a way of life and moral imperative; central aim is the conversion of the opponent in order to bring about change (e.g. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.);  pragmatic non-violence: non-violence as most effective method available in the given circumstances; morality or beliefs not central; main aim is defeat of opponent in order to bring about change; strategic rather than principled (violent protest shifts attention away from what is under protest and towards the violent act).

What is Non-Violent Action? (5) Things to bear in mind 1) Non-violent action is not the same as pacifism (Zunes 1994): pacifism does not necessarily involve political action nor is everyone who uses non-violent strategies for change a pacifist. 2) Violent and non-violent strategies for change can and frequently do co-exist. 3) ‘Nonviolent struggle does not mean the absence of violence’ (Schock 2005: 8): governments may respond with violence to non-violent action.

Famous Practitioners Gandhi  Mohandas Gandhi used mass non-violent resistance to change racist anti-Indian laws in South Africa and then to try to bring down British colonialism in India.  By 1907 in South Africa had formulated method known as satyagraha (‘truth-force’): militant form of non-violent resistance. Gandhi and followers accepted fines, jail sentences and physical abuse.

Famous Practitioners (2) Gandhi  1915 Gandhi returned to India. Led national resistance movement using non-violent non- cooperation with British colonizers. Imprisoned salt campaign, acted against oppressive salt laws. Imprisoned Quit India campaign.  India granted independence Gandhi assassinated in 1948 by Hindu extremist objecting to his call for Hindu-Muslim unity.

Famous Practitioners (3) Martin Luther King, Jr.  Mid-1950s to mid-1960s Black civil rights campaign in America; most visible leader Martin Luther King, Jr. (assassinated 1968).  Distinguished between just and unjust laws; asserted commitment to rule of law in general but argued unjust law has no moral requirement to be followed (moral imperative to change unjust laws).  Distinction between just and unjust laws based on Christian morality; made reference to natural law and thoughts of St Thomas Aquinas.

Famous Practitioners (4) Martin Luther King, Jr. ‘I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.’ (King, ‘Letter from Birmingham City Jail’, reproduced in Bedau 1991.)

Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance 1) Moral obligation (Sharp 1963), violence ‘is in itself an evil’ (Zinn 2003); 2) Violence is incompatible with civil disobedience as a form of public, political address within limits of overall adherence to law (Rawls 1971); 3) Non-violence is more desirable than violence as a means, since one of the principles guiding advocates of civil disobedience may be the belief in a non- violent world as an end goal (Zinn 2003);

Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance (2) 4) One of the points of civil disobedience is to communicate with and educate others; the use of indiscriminate violence, particularly against people, turns other people against the cause (Zinn 2003); 5) Violent conflict is too costly (Zunes 1994); 6) Unarmed methods are more effective (Zunes 1994).

Can Non-Violent Action Bring About Change? Sharp (1973): Yes:  Political power is not monolithic, i.e. it is not fixed, indestructible or self-perpetuating.  Rather, political power is relational, i.e. it depends on the cooperation and obedience of the people and is therefore pluralistic and fragile.  Reasons for obedience are variable and can be strengthened or weakened. If a sufficient number of people decide not to co-operate or obey, the government will be unable to rule. In this manner, non-violent actions can bring about change.

Source: Schock (2005: 4)

Can Non-Violent Action Bring About Change? (2) Why civil resistance works (Stephan and Chenoweth 2008)  Commitment to non-violent methods 1) Enhances domestic legitimacy; 2) Encourages more broad-based participation in resistance; 3) Enhances international legitimacy.  Regime violence against non-violent movements is likely to backfire, showing the violent regime in such a negative light that shifts of opinion occur (Sharp’s ‘political jiu-jitsu’).

Pop Quiz  Would a concerted campaign of non-violent resistance from the middle of 1993, urging the Rwandan government to properly implement the Arusha Accords, have led to multi-ethnic government and prevented the genocide?  Yes  No

Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict  Most ideas about civil disobedience assume that although disobeyer feels a particular law or policy is unjust, they have faith in and accept the wider structure of law and political system as a whole. Also assumed that the society has a general shared conception of justice (Rawls 1971).  Problematic for ethno-national conflict situations: legitimacy of overall political system is often what is at issue in the conflict; such societies often have little basis for a shared sense of justice.

Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict (2)  Acts of non-violent resistance are only purposeful if authorities are open to some degree of persuasion and change, otherwise tactics will fail and lead to disillusionment and violence amongst followers (MacFarlane 1971).  Sri Lanka: mid-1950s to mid-1960s Tamil satyagraha campaigns faced violent response and political and legislative compromises with the government that were achieved collapsed. Tamil agitation became increasingly violent and the political goal more extreme.  Northern Ireland: civil rights campaign from 1967; demonstrations faced counter-demonstrations by loyalists that soon turned violent. Helped feed support for violent methods of political struggle.

Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict (3)  Civil disobedience theory is overwhelmingly directed at political contexts of liberal democracy and the practice is largely associated with political protest in liberal democratic systems. Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience is explicitly directed at situations of ‘near justice’, i.e. ‘legitimately established democratic authority’.  Not particularly helpful for many contexts of ethno- national conflict and/or non-liberal democratic systems.

Summary  Not all ethnic conflicts are violent.  Non-violent strategies for change pursue political objectives outside of formally institutionalised political channels and without the threat of physical violence. They can be distinguished according to the intentions, methods and motivations of those who implement non- violent strategies.  Practitioners of non-violent strategies have achieved some significant political and social change.

Summary (2)  Notion of a shared sense of justice underpinning protest is problematic for ethnically divided societies.  The problem of response may be a difficult one in situations of ethnic conflict.  Civil disobedience theory is largely directed at contexts of liberal democracy – problematic for other contexts?  Non-violent methods enhance domestic and international legitimacy. Following pragmatic considerations, they are preferable to violent strategies for change, as they can potentially be more effective and less costly.