Hi everyone,

I'd like to start off by highlighting the enormous and exciting developments over recent decades in not only nonviolent strategic theory but the plethora of training programs, tools, resources that have been produced to make this strategic theory available and accessible to people around the world.

The lessons and successes of recent large scale popular movements are being transmitted across movements and regions by case studies, books, documentaries, video games, manuals and a seemingly large number of trainer's running small to large scale training programs for activists throughout the world. It seems that the shifts in popular perceptions of the relative effectiveness of nonviolent or unarmed struggle is being matched by an increased willingness and capability to provide training and resources for movements. It seems to me more likely that movements today will be exposed to the concepts and potential of radical nonviolence in creating change and noticably easier for activists in the majority world to access tools, resources and information on nonviolent struggle than it was a few decades ago.

The study of strategic nonviolence is increasingly being integrated in undergrad and graduate international relations and peace/security studies programs. Mainstream acceptance of the theory and concepts of 'people power' seems to be slowing expanding, (particulary after each example of brave and defiant nonviolent resistance is broadcast around the world), and the quality of our training resources, manuals and hopefully our skills is improving. As more activists are inspired by the success of struggles in other regions the more interest is generated in developing simmiliar and nonviolent strategies.

So whether all this is enough, how other people are seeing this and what else we can do to help support and build effective nonviolent movements for change are questions I'd like to explore further. But before we delve into the lessons, learnings and challenges of training for nonviolent action, I'd acknowledge the work of so many activists, trainers and movement builders on this dialogue and elsewhere who have contributed to these incredibly exciting developments.

Anthony Kelly

(Australia)

www.thechangeagency.org

In response to the first question in this theme:

What would you recommend as a core package of knowledge and skills on theory and application for nonviolent action? (e.g., understanding strategy, tactics, power relations, etc)

In my opinion, when doing a workshop, the most important basic ideas to get across are:

1. To make change, nonviolent movements need people to support them. Therefore, it is beneficial to a movement to build an inclusive vision that attracts many people in society to support the movement. Movements are at their most powerful and are most transformative when they are able to achieve widespread participation by people in society.

2. Movements plan strategy from the top downwards: First they develop their vision (which is an articulation of what they are struggling for, not just what they are struggling against), then they develop their strategy and individual campaigns to achieve that vision, and then they develop tactics to implement their strategy.

3. Power is based on people’s obedience and consent, and therefore power can shift when people shift their obedience and consent patterns.

4. The targets (whether individuals, organizations, or institutions) that a movement wants to influence all depend on the continued obedience of people in order to function. Therefore, if the individual or leader of the organization or institution that the movement wants to influence does not want to listen to the movement, the movement can gain leverage by gaining the support of the people that the individual or leader of the organization or institution depend on in order to their maintain power.

These are the most fundamental ideas in nonviolent action that I think apply to virtually all struggles. These might constitute the “core package” of concepts that need to be delivered in a training.

Beyond those concepts, I think the rest of the material for each individual group should be customized according to what that group needs. Some groups may benefit from an intensive lesson on communications, others from a lesson about soliciting third party support, others from a lesson on negotiations or conflict resolution, and another from a lesson on capacity building actions, for example. There is significant variation between what a group struggling for minority rights may need, as opposed to a group struggle for self-determination. Or a group fighting for democracy, as opposed to a group fighting for labor rights or women’s rights. Or a group facing major repression versus a group facing far less repression. Therefore, trainers need to be flexible and be able to customize the content of what they teach to whatever best serves the audience that they are training.

You can find lesson plans that relate to a number of these areas in the curriculum (entitled: A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle) that I co-authored with the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS)

In response to the second questions in this theme: What is the importance of having a strategic plan/vision?

There are many reasons for a movement to have a vision and strategic plan. First, let’s define what a vision and strategic plan is.

A vision is a picture of what the movement wants some part of society to look like when the struggle is complete. For example, “we are struggling for a society in which all people are treated equal, regardless of the color of their skin”. Or, “we are struggling for a society in which human rights are universally recognized, and each person’s vote is counted”. Or, “we are struggling for a society in which a person who works is paid enough and receives enough benefits that they can support their family”. A vision tells what a movement is struggling for (human rights, democracy, freedom, justice, accountable government, transparent government, a clean environment, etc.), not just what it is against (dictatorship, war, corruption, discrimination, oppression, racism, etc.). A vision is also designed to appeal to as many groups as possible so that the nonviolent movement can gain those groups’ support.

A strategic plan is a plan for how to realistically achieve that vision (or to achieve as much of that vision as is realistically possible). The strategic plan can be broken down into different parts. It consists of campaigns and tactics. A campaign is a plan for the conduct of a major phase of a nonviolent struggle. For example, a group that wants the right to unionize and better working conditions may have several campaigns as part of their strategic plan. One campaign may be aimed at influencing consumers. Another campaign may be based around organizing workers. A third campaign may based around building coalitions and appealing to external groups for support. All of those campaigns work together to support the group’s vision of a labor force that has the right to unionize and fair and safe working conditions.

Each of these campaigns requires certain tactics, which are actions that a movement takes to achieve particular objectives. For example, the consumer campaign may involve tactics such as consumer boycotts, writing letters to management, and divesting money from the corporation. The workers campaign may involve tactics such as striking, picketing, and establishing a strike fund for workers. And the coalition building campaign may involve tactics such as appearing at churches, meeting with other unions, and supporting new legislation.

There is a lot more to strategic planning (such as setting objectives, developing communications, targeting actions, etc.) and developing a vision than I have mentioned above. But based on the simple definitions and examples I’ve given above, here is my answer to why a vision and a strategic plan are so important.

1. First and foremost, what I see based on history is that movements that engage in strategic planning tend to be more effective than movements that rely on improvised or spontaneous nonviolent action.

2. Movements that strategize and develop a vision maximize the impact of their human resources, material resources, and time. Because they are organized around common goals and a common vision, they perform tactics and campaigns that all mutually reinforce each other. They concentrate their strengths on winning achievable objectives. And they are resilient when they are faced with opposition because they have done the analysis ahead of time for how they will handle opposition.

Hi everyone,

glad to participate in discussion unveiling such an important issues, regrading forst one i would like to give some short comments.

...pretty complex question, which should be explained on four levels - principles, vision, strategy and tactics

PRINCIPLES

If you analyse dozen of succesfull nonviolent movements you may think that every single struggle is unique, and you would be right! Still people like dr Peter Ackerman has researched into these struggles searching for more or less universal PRINCIPLES of succes. After a years of discussions, seems that three principles for succes in ALL of the cases (from India in the beginning of century, through Movements i have had personal experiences with, Like Serbian OTPOR or Georgian Kmara, to Lebanon movement after Harriri`s assasination, which we may consider as the last public succes of nonviolent movement recently), seems that we may define three principles

1. Unity (which may be breakdown as Unity of purpose, Unity of People and Unity within the organization)

2. Planning (including defining Vision of tommrow, Grand strategy, Campaigns, Individual tactics, their clever selection and linking)

3. Nonviolent discipline (train and maintain nonviolent discipline within movement helps build momentum and make opponents oppresion Backfire.

You may observe (and Robert Helvey has written about it in his great book "NVS - Thinking about the fundamenttals" avaliable on this dialogue, that this three principles together with simple rools dating from Sun Tzu "Art of War" creates the impression that principles of succes are simmilar, wether you examine the nonviolent struggle, or millitary struggle.

 You may find more about this issue in CANVAS Core curriculum, effective guide to nonviolent struggle" avaliable on this website

Hello everybody,

Strategic planing and envisioning lays down the basis of a solid, well prepared on-site engagement. Strategy represents basicaly the goals and mission that an individual and/or team of practitioners are trying to achieve in the course of their envolvement in a conflict/area/region. It clarifies goals that deployment/force/action/practitioner is working for and highlights the way/road towards effective implementation of the goals. Strategic principles proved guidance for operationalization of how we implement the startegy at the concrete action level.

One of the tools that we use and share through our training programmes (specifically Designing Peacebuilding Programes) and can be considered a strategy for peacebuilding programes design is called the 5 steps process:

• Step 1: NOW: Where are we now?
• Step 2: FUTURE: Where do you want to go?
• Step 3: Which path shall we choose?
• Step 4: Which milestones will form the path?
• Step 5: Keeping on the path?

Each of the steps uses different tools for implementation like: Situation Assessment, Conflict Mapping & Analysis, SWOT, Stakeholder Assessment, Scenario Prognosys, Risk Management, Lessons Learned etc.

As an open question to everybody: whould it be possible to share other models of strategy building for enhancing the way all of us, as theoreticians and practitioners in the fields of nonviolence and pecebuilding, are working systemically for a positive change?

PATRIR team

Bianca, Corina and Zsuzsa

Hello everyone! I am one of the interns for New Tactics in Human Rights for this summer and I have loved reading this dialogue so far, but I have a question for any of the practitioners or other participants:

I am a college student and I have had a couple human rights classes and none of them addressed non-violent action and I was wondering if you think nonviolent action should be addressed in human rights classes and in what capacity? In my classes we discussed a lot of human rights abuses but not much about how to stop or prevent them, is this something human rights classes should focus more on?

Thanks everyone, I appriciate it!

-Alexa

I would like to initiate a discussion on this point because it’s fundamental to successful nonviolent campaigns and struggles in general, and it’s a difficult yet important aspect to be included in training. Strategic selection means creating or identifying a nonviolent action that:

Ø flows from the campaign or struggle’s strategic objectives,

Ø is something that the group has the capacity to organize and resources (human, material, financial, etc.) to carry out. For example, if a new group is attempting to launch a campaign, it probably has a few members, a limited number of people who will come take part in the action, and limited organizational and resource capacity. Thus, if such a group decides it wants to carry out a march to City Hall culminating in a rally, this might involve more than the group can handle at this early juncture.

Ø takes into consideration risk for the movement and for those who will take the action.

There is more on tactical selection in the CANVAS book: “A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle.” Hardy Merriman also has some good ideas he may want to share.

Tactics aren’t inherently effective or ineffective, or low risk versus medium versus high risk. It depends on the context in which the nonviolent struggle operates. For example, organizing citizens to turn off their lights every night at the same time for one minute may be very effective in one context (Turkey, 1997 http://www.newtactics.org/en/ACalltoEndCorruption), but not effective in different context where the majority of people don’t have a predictable supply of electricity or if many people don’t even have electricity. The lesson learned is not that people should turn off their lights at the same time, but that the campaign identified an easy, low-cost, low-risk action that virtually anyone could do.

The same applies to risk. For example, during the Solidarity movement in Poland, in 1980 workers in the shipyards went on strike for the right to have free trade unions. The nonviolent, civic power they exerted on the regime pressured it to accommodate to their demands and they won significant achievements. However, in 1983 the Chilean National Workers Committee decided to launch a strike in the copper mines and a “people’s walk-out.” When the mines were surrounded by tanks, troops and military helicopters, Rodolfo Seguel, the Committee’s head realized “…there was going to be a bloodbath. So just four days before the strike was scheduled we changed it into a National Protest Day.” (Ackerman, Peter and Jack DuVall, “A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict, p. 285) So the same nonviolent tactic – worker’s strike – was relatively low risk and successful in one context and high-risk in another. Information about these cases can be found in the documentary series and companion book called “A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict.” They are available from the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (www.nonviolent-conflict.org).

Even within an ongoing nonviolent struggle, a tactic can be high risk at one point or geographical location and low-risk at another point in time or location. Srdja Popovic may tell us more about OTPOR’s strategic choice of tactics in this context. It’s interesting that in the early stages, OTPOR didn’t attempt mass demonstrations in the capital of Belgrade. But at the end of the struggle they did and these actions were successful.

In terms of teaching this, it’s important to give real examples, but perhaps what can be most effective in training is to have participants come to this insight themselves rather than be told. One can do this through a guided discussion after viewing segments of “A Force More Powerful” or discussing historical cases. One can also help participants learn how to design nonviolent actions. There is a good group exercise in the CANVAS book: “A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle.” One can also do a group exercise that has participants design a low-risk, nonviolent action. The groups can be asked to:

Ø Identify what should be accomplished with the action.

Ø Decide on the issue.

Ø Decide if the action would hypothetically be small-scale with a limited number of committed activists or a larger, mass action involving regular citizens

Ø Assess the degree of difficulty of maintaining nonviolent discipline. Will it be difficult for the people involved to maintain nonviolent discipline? If so, this needs to be factored into the choice of tactic.

Ø Participants cannot pick protests, demonstrations, marches or rallies – in order to encourage them to think “out of the box” and learn that there are many more kinds of nonviolent actions beyond these “traditional” ones.

Ø Each group must address these considerations to design a low-risk nonviolent action.

Ø Give the groups an allotted amount of time to work on this, and then have each group present their work to everyone.

One form of this exercise to understand and design “dilemma actions” can be found in the above-mentioned CANVAS book. Dilemma actions put the nonviolent movement in “win-win” situation and the opposing side in a “lose-lose” situation. For example, during the Indian independence movement, Gandhi’s Salt March to the ocean to make salt was a dilemma action for the British colonial occupiers. Gandhi identified an issue – the necessity of the human body for salt and the British practice of unfairly taxing salt while forbidding people to make their own salt from the ocean. In 1930, after marching hundreds of kilometers with thousands of supporters, Gandhi reached the shores and scooped up mud, a signal to the “salt resisters” to begin boiling sea water. This mass act of civil disobedience put the British in a dilemma. “If they arrested the salt lawbreakers, they would create martyrs for the national movement and confirm Gandhi’s claims about their oppressive intent. If they let the salt resisters alone, they might sow doubt that they had the will to enforce their own laws in the face of Indian resistance” (Ackerman, Peter and Jack DuVall, “A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict, p. 88) Another good presentation on dilemma actions was developed by Philippe Duhamel and maybe he’ll want to talk about it more detail (http://www.newtactics.org/en/TheDilemmaDemonstration).

Two types of nonviolent actions can be effective under conditions of repression: the abovementioned dilemma actions, and simple, mass actions. An example of the latter can be found in the abovementioned Turkish Citizens Initiative for Constant Light (http://www.newtactics.org/en/ACalltoEndCorruption).