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).

I like the points that Shaazka made on the topic. Here are some other thoughts on how movements can think about the issue of repression.

Costs of repression

When facing a repressive opponent, an important question for nonviolent movements to consider is what costs the opponent pays when it uses repression.

In particular:

1. What material costs does the repression have for the opponent?

2. What human resource costs does the repression have for the opponent?

3. How much time does the opponent require to organize and carry out the repression?

4. Does the repression reduce the opponent's legitimacy?

These are four potential major costs that the opponent may pay for committing acts of repression.

Increasing the costs of repression

Once these four costs have been identified, a movement may want to ask itself the following questions:

1. How can we (the nonviolent movement) make our opponent use more of its time and material and human resources when it engages in repression?

2. How can we cause the opponent to lose the maximum amount of legitimacy when it engages in repression?

In other words, how can we (the movement) raise the cost of repression for our opponent? If a movement is able to significantly increase the costs of repression for the opponent, the opponent’s repression will becomes ineffective.

Tactical considerations: Tactics of Concentration and Dispersion

In terms of increasing the time, material and human resource costs of repression, movements have many options. One simple consideration is choosing which tactics to use. Tactics that are public and that concentrate people in a small area (such as protests) usually are the easiest actions for an opponent to repress—they don't require much of the opponent’s time, human, or material resources.

On the other hand, tactics that disperse people over a wide area and that involve small, low-risk, anonymous actions often require more time and material and human resources to repress. Examples of these kinds of dispersed tactics are a consumer boycott or writing symbols on walls, buildings, or on some other objects or places that people choose. These actions cost a lot of time, human, and material resources for the movement’s opponent to repress. Furthermore, even if the opponent does spend a lot of time and resources to try to stop these tactics, it is still very difficult for it to identify and arrest everyone who is engaging in low-risk, dispersed actions.

Therefore, probably the simplest way for a movement to deal with repression is to make sure that it does not provide an easy target for the opponent to repress. Unless there is a strategic reason for allowing the opponent to repress a movement’s activists, it is often wise for a movement to avoid repression when possible and to make it difficult for its opponent to use repression. Tactics of dispersion help to do that.

There is also a category of tactics called "dilemma actions" that are important to understand and that can help raise the cost of repression for the opponent as well. Although I won't go into detail about them here, you can learn more by downloading the curriculum I co-wrote (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle) and reading lesson 12.

Legitimacy

In some cases, using repression can also cost the opponent a lot of legitimacy. For example, in the above case of a consumer boycott, even if an opponent is able to identify all of the boycotters, it may look unreasonable if it arrests people who are simply choosing not to buy a certain product. Or, in the case of a concentrated action such as a protest, the opponent may pay a high price in legitimacy if it uses repression against a protest in which respected leaders and celebrities are present, or a protest in which the people who are protesting have a lot of sympathy from the general public and/or certain powerful groups in society.

Increasing the legitimacy cost to the opponent usually requires that the movement figure out how to communicate about the repression. In some places, formal independent media may be able to communicate about the repression, but in other cases, digital media, photography or video or even simple word of mouth can be enough to spread the news.

The next question is what should a movement communicate about the repression. This is a complex issue, but you can find some simple guidelines for communicating by downloading the document below:

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/bf/bfbasics.pdf

This document, entitled “Backfire Basics”, gives the fundamental principles of what actions and communications movements can do to make repression backfire. It was developed by the Professor Brian Martin (University of Wollongong [Australia]). Martin has written extensively about the backfire process, and if people are interested, he has other information available about backfire on his website as well.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/backfire.html

The issue of how to avoid and reduce the impact of repression is complex and there are a lot of variables involved, but I hope the ideas above provide a helpful way to think about this issue.

Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (PATRIR), Cluj-Napoca

Hi everybody,

Among the first meetings with representatives of civil society I had in Tiraspol, Transdniestria region of Moldova - currently separated and self-proclaimed independent from Republic of Moldova, one of the so called "frozen conflicts", also brought forth some of the challenges that some NGOs face in their relationship with the de facto authorities.

This is not uncommon there, but what I would like to share with you is some approaches of these people, many quite young, in sometimes difficult situations facing them.

A woman NGO leader was sharing with us how during one of the "interviews" with the Informational services she was attempting to present the work of her NGO using the TRANSCEND diagram, showing them how the work of the NGO is not threatening and actually is aiming towards the transformation of the situation in the society beneficial on all sides. She found it very important to be able to meet with other NGOs and create a guide with useful tips from each NGOs' experiences on how to deal constructively and peacefully with the authorities who place obstacles in the work of NGOs.

Currently, this kind of cooperation happens at some levels, through joint meetings in different NGOs.

I mention that since 2006 PATRIR is working with local partners in the Moldova-Transdniestria conflict for civil society capacity building for conflict transformation through peaceful means and peace building. You have more info on the Cooperative Peace Project website.

The PATRIR Team

 P.S. All of us (myself, Bianca and Zsuzsa)are working in projects in Moldova-Transdniestria conflict and would be open to share by email in the future if wanted.

Hello Everyone,

I have another question:

What about when things don't work? You have put together a great plan with all the right strategies and tactics, but it just does not work for whatever reason (I know this may not be a pleasant topic) How do you keep peoples interests in a nonviolent action that may have had some failures (as Im sure many do) in the beginning? Also, how do you incorporate that into training? How do you prepare those you are taining to deal with potential 'failures' (for lack of a better word) without getting disheartened?

 Thanks again, as an interested student, having this resource is great!

-Alexa- New Tactics intern

hard to know where to start on this theme, so i thought i would seaparate the different threads.

there are a number of organisations contributing to this dialogue that do strategy in powerful ways and i am keen to hear more about how you approach this work. the Change Agency has made some attempts to compile a suite of resources that cover some of the key elements of strategy [http://www.thechangeagency.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=4 and [http://www.thechangeagency.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=57]. Of these I guess there are  a couple of tools that we know people find very useful.

1. critical path analysis http://www.thechangeagency.org/_dbase_upl/critical_path.pdf this is a tool that we facilitate/share with groups to support a shift in thinking from tactics (what we do) to outcomes (what we want). Our experience is that many activists are much more comfortable focusing on what they will do (what tactic they will employ) without necessarilly thinking about how it connects with the vision, goals and objectives they are hoping to achieve. Critical path is one tool that asks us to articulate our vision and then break it down into a series of outcomes or changes that would be necesary for our vision to be realised. Do others have tools like this or others that help us think through what we want? that help us develop a theory of change?

2. power mapping http://www.thechangeagency.org/_dbase_upl/tCA_power_mapping.pdf this is another tool that we have found useful in terms of strategy building and especially in terms of supprting our thinking about mapping players/political actors, their position in relation to our issue and their level of influence over our campaign objectives. In some movements, there is not a clear focus on the need to identify 'targets' (decision makers who can give you what you want), and we have found this to be one simple way for activists to start analysing political actors -- beyond 'the government', 'the community', 'the media', etc. Again i am interested to hear more about the tools others use when analysing power and players.

sam la rocca 

I am interested here in learning about how others 'educate/facilitate/teach/train" about experiential methodologies -- what activist education theories, models and experiential processes do you use to provoke thining about leanring methods?

One that i have always found inspiring and well received (in terms of experience and learning) is Training for Change's "water glasses exercise" http://www.trainingforchange.org/content/view/177/39/index.html

In terms of learning models, the Change Agency's approach is shaped by the work of one of our directors, James Whelan. James' PhD explores "Education and training for effective environmental advocacy" http://www.thechangeagency.org/_dbase_upl/JWhelan_PhD.pdf . And while he was focused on the environment movement in Australia, the chapter on education theory is applicable to activist education in all movements. One model i find useful in terms of methodology and design is The ‘spiral model’ by the Doris Marshall Institute (no longer active but previously based in Toronto) http://www.thechangeagency.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=36 , which essentially follows an action learning cycle but with some guidelines for desgning experiential process: 1. Start with the experience of participants 2. Look for patterns 3. Add new information and theory 4. Practice skills, strategise and plan for action 5. Apply in action and the spiral starts again.

like i said, i am keen to hear about other models and methods, y'all use for creating and talking about experiential learning -- or other activist education approaches.

sam la rocca

I wanted to be sure that the training resource that Hardy Merriman shared in his "Core Concepts" post would also appear here under the Training Tools and Processes theme for easy access.

Hardy stated in his post: "You can find lesson plans that relate to a number of these [Core Concept] 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) ."

Here are the first four sections of the curriculum. This is an excellent resource book.

Theory and its application:

1 • The First Step: The Vision of Tomorrow, page 14 2 • Power in Society: Models and Sources of Power, page 22 3 • Pillars of Support, page 32 4 • Obedience, page 44

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

Hello everybody,

We from PATRIR are glad to join this discussion. We are very happy to share with you some of the European experiences that we have contributed to gather in the frame of a common (11 European partners) project, entitled ARCA (www.peacetraining.org)

One of the outputs of ARCA is the "Guide to Peace Educators" (http://www.peacetraining.org/files/materials/PeaceTraining_guide.pdf), is a comprehensive overview of actual practice of Peace Training in Europe and at the global level. It looks at what is being done to train people for peacework and what can be done to improve the quality and content of training. In the fields of civilian crisis intervention, violence prevention, peacebuilding and conflict transformation, the importance of training is increasingly recognised as essential to develop the professional competencies of interveners. The present guide aims at presenting current practices in the field of preparing individuals for peacework and nonviolent intervention in conflicts, to reflect about challenges the field faces, and to offer reflections and visions for future developments. This resource is available in 6 languages (EN, FR, ES, RO, IT, DE) on the above mentioed website.

Another importatn resource material is the one developed by PATRIR in collaboration with Kurve Wustrow (Germany), focusing on enhancing trainers capacity for non-violent training. This Manual on Conflict transformation is the product of a process by a consortium of partner organisations. The goal was to identify, synthesise, complement, teach and enable conflict transformation for trainers from a European point of view. The project consisted of the conducting of training of trainers workshops and the Manual. The training of trainers workshops were conducted in Slovakia, Romania, Italy and Switzerland and Germany in the years 2005 and 2006. The whole project has been, and continues to be, an ambitious and challenging initiative with many different dimensions. We have learnt a great deal, but in an emerging and dynamic field there is always much more for us to learn and to improve. The Manual provides different chapters with concepts and mirroring exercises that are crucial for understanding and applying conflict transformation. The Manual is based upon the comprehension of Diana Francis’ conflict transformation theory and focuses upon transformation of social conflicts. The Manual purposely does not supply the reader with “fixed schedules”. It is our true believe that every schedule would give the underlying message that reality can be copied. In that sense all the exercises function as suggestions that can be changes due to the chosen objective.

For downloading this resource material, please access: http://www.trainingoftrainers.org/download.htm

With best wishes and wishing useful reading,

The PATRIR Team,

Bianca, Corina and Zsuzsa

 Building upon this point of the knowledge area, we at PATRIR have developed customed designed trainings trying to help facilitate the processes of conflict transformation through non-violence for different conflict areas that we are engeged.

 Among our participants to the training we often have people from the same country involved in the different parties of the same conflict. It proves to be a real eye-opener for people tools like the ABC triangle (Attitudes, Behaviours, Contradictions) that leads individuals to analyse their own and the "other's" attitudes, behaviours, contradictions towards themselves and the representatives of the other parties. Also, a very useful tool for opening people up for discussion on the attitudes and behaviours in conflict situations is the Peace-culture War-culture presentation. Publications that present these approces are: "No Fist is Big Enough to Hide the Sky: the Power of Nonviolence" by Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen or "Searching for Peace" by Johan Galtung, Carl Jacobsen and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen.

On the practical side, after addressing these issues in the frame of a training program, the change of attitude of parties towards one another was quite visible. Joint participation to the training's working groups, further cooperation after returning to their own countries became a common phenomenon.

One of the greatest experiences was receiving four participants from one of the South-East Asian countries. These people, faced with the theory of non-violence and attitude/ behaviour change, decided already in their own country to work together in order to solve their conflicts by negotiation, mediated with the help of a community development organisation, that in time became the official mediating organisation of the peace process. The training itself, the participants and the atmosphere created outside the training was rated very beneficial for their own objectives. This is a clear example of the fact that the content process and the quality of the participants can greatly ifluence the attitudes and behaviour of individuals inside a training and outside, in their own countries.

In our customed designed trainings, we continuously improve the used tools, with interdisciplinary ones, like strategic project management in applied to peacebuilding initiatives, like in our Designing Peacebuilding Training (DPP).

With best wishes and waiting for your questions,

The PATRIR Team - Bianca, Corina and Zsuzsa 

There is this one tool that I have used once and must say I found it very effective and appropriate. In the run-up to the last general elections in Kenya, there was need to reach as many people as possible with the Nonviolence message and as an organisation we thought of introducing a bit of theatre into the process eventhough this was at a different level. Having taken participants which incidentally were from a theatre group through Nonviolence training, as part of their action plan they decided to spread the Nonviolence message to other communities through what they called community theatre. I must say this being a participatory approach it worked wonders such that post election violence that rocked Kenya never affected places where we reached with message.

I say it was effective because we managed to reach a larger audience within a short period of time and mobolisation became very easy. It was a new approach to us but communities quickly identified with it and so to me it is a tool that I wouldn't mind using again and again in the future.

Oluoch Dola

Chemchemi Ya Ukweli

P.O.BOX 14370 00800 Nairobi, Kenya

Tel:254-20-4446970 or 254-20-2320346 or 254735244554

Email:oluochdolahotmail [dot] com

Regarding knoweldge transfer, our experience matches with famous Dale Cone of Experience - whatever knowledge in nonviolent struggle is trasferred, the best and most efficient way to do it is using practical tools which enable participants to adopt new skill by DOING IT.

 Throughut the years, CANVAS, together with its friends  has given our best to achieve modest contribution to spreading this knowledge worldwide. We have designed  4 new tools for knowledge transfer, and accomodated dozens of existing tools from wide spectrum to Nonviolent Struggle knowldge trasfer porcess. Core package of this tools, containing practical exercises for understanding Nonviolent Struggle fundamentals is as follows.

1. THE FIRST STEP: THE VISION OF TOMORROW (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle CANVAS Core Curriculum, pages 14-21, English) (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle) Every long journey starts with one small first step. In the case of a strategic nonviolent struggle, this step is the simple and precise answer to the question: What does your movement want the society to be like when the struggle is over?The answer to this question, known as the “Vision of Tomorrow”, provides a picture of the future society you are striving towards. Once formulated, the Vision of Tomorrow becomes your movement’s primary objective. It is a permanent guideline for your movement’s supporters. Your strategic nonviolent struggle becomes a journey towards achieving that vision. That journey, however, is not an easy one. The obstacles on your journey must be foreseen and removed; allies can be approached and convinced to join their efforts with your effort. Also, opponents must be recognized and faced.  2. PLANNING METHODOLOGIES: THE POWER GRAPH (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle CANVAS Core Curriculum, pages 94-105, English) (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle) 

Power graph analysis is a method of macro-analysis that can give you a quick, general assessment — a “snapshot” — of comparative power relationships in your society. It provides a broad analysis of strengths and weaknesses of your opponent and your movement. This assessment can assist in directing your focus towards more favorable courses of action for your movement. Still, it can never be a full substitute for a strategic estimate (outlined in the Advanced Course, Lesson A1: Planning Methodologies: The Strategic Estimate), which serves as a source document for all aspects of strategic planning.

(for more info on one of greatest accomodated tools ever - The Strategic Estimate search book of Robert L Helvey, NVS - Thinking about fundamentals, also quoted and avaliable on this website)  3. Communicating clearly - SETI (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle CANVAS Core Curriculum, pages 114-115, English) (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle) Description : Tool for prioritizing communication goals, and design communication for selected target audience. Explains four types of communication goals – on Strategic – Tactical (Time) and Informative-Emotional (Emotional Scale) As effectiveness of your communications campaign in the long-term depends on

your capacity to move people from Informative to Emotional and from Tactical to Strategic Goals, or visually toward Strategic Emotional objectives, in the upper- right part of the SETI diagram.

4. Planning for victory -  PLAN FORMAT (Nonviolent Struggle – 50 Crucial Points, pages 50-57, English, Serbian, Farsi, Spanish, French) and (A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle CANVAS Core Curriculum, pages 174 - 181, English) Since planning is the first and foremost step that your campaign, or any other major activity, needs to stay organized, you will need a brief and precise “How to?” instruction for every level of planning—from strategic to tactical. It is well known from the field of business that “no product may be sold if you cannot persuade the potential buyer within 10 minutes that it is necessary for him or her to have it.” Likewise, it is crucial for nonviolent movements not only to keep their various program and operational documents brief, but also to structure them in a standardized format that ensures clarity as to purpose, actions to be taken, and assigned responsibilities.

Hope this may be helpful. Thank you for sharing your great tools with us!

Just wanted to let you all know that we have collected the resources shared within this dialogue, and categorized them for you. The URL is:

http://www.newtactics.org/en/node/2923 

Enjoy!  

Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder

Thanks, New Tactics, for initiating this online dialogue. I'm really looking forward to some great discussion. To kick things off, I'd like to describe two challenging workshop situations I've encountered very recently - challenges that seem to come up from time to time and speak of something deeper or more significant. I'd love to know what others participating in the dialogue make of these situations. How would you respond? What do you make of this? 

During a  workshop, the trainers distributed a 'statement of intent' for an action that was part of the workshop. This included a set of 'agreements' that had fleshed out by the group initiating the workshop. Naturally, the 'agreement' included commitments to nonviolence and that participants wouldn't damage property. Our action was a practice or warm up to a much larger action in coming months when activist will stop a coal train. For the practice action, the organised proposed an agreement not to enter the property of the railways company or to disrupt movement of trains. This had been the basis for liaison with the police.

As the statement of intent was circulated and read, one member of the group asked 'what are these' and 'why are they called agreements? 'Who agreed to these?' After clarification that the organisers proposed that they were asking people to participate according to these agreements, the individual said that while the proposed agreements seemed sensible, he could not make a firm commitment to adhering to them. He was not sure how the situation would unfold and what he might feel he needed to do during the action.

What would you do as a trainer or workshop participant in this situation? Why?

There's a thread that runs through a lot of our workshops with social movement organisations and activists that I find myself reflecting on. Something that (hopefully) others participating in this online dialogue might have also seen and have some insights you're happy to share.

In the world of nonviolent direct action, there seem to be a widespread belief that diversity is strength: that our campaigns will be served by individuals and small groups following their instincts and convictions. In practice, this can look like many cells, action or affinity groups taking actions that, while quite different, appear to be broadly aligned around achieving a specific objective. The Australian climate change movement demonstrates this pattern. The many action groups working to prevent dangerous climate change tend to act in isolation from each other, apparently trusting that their combined efforts (quite different tactics, targets and apparent analyses) will succeed. When planning direct action, the movement seems drawn to including many small groups each doing their own thing.  

I'm a big believer in collective action. My experience brings me to a belief that collective action requires some selflessless and self-discipline. If I have had an opportunity to contribute to the process of analysis and strategy development, I then need to support the group's decsisions and actions, even if they don't seem the absolute best / wisest / most strategic option. My experience in social movements provides me with evidence that power can be built and edxercised when campaigning organisations or movements act in unison. I have witnessed many successful campaigns that appeared to rely on clear and shared analyses and focused courses of action, with movements investing significantly in tightly coordinated action.

So as a trainer, I'm challenged by this tension. I can facilitate dialogue so groups make their choices (including this one about diversity, unanimity, alignment, etc), but how to respond to a group's commitment to diversity of tactics when this seems to be based on an unshakable faith or political  standpoint rather than from an analytical, evidence-based or pragmatic perspective (I'm showing my colours here!)?

What do you think?

[quote=New Tactics]Theme: Training the trainer – training experiences and challenges

In this theme area, please share your personal experiences and challenges regarding organizing and providing training for nonviolent action.

• What are some of the issues that a trainer [community] needs to address when the trainer comes from outside the community, country, or movement?
• What skills are needed to be a good nonviolent action trainer? (e.g., ability to listen, flexibility, etc)
• How do you select people for trainings and roles? (e.g., criteria and process for selection of participants, moving from trainee to trainer role, etc)
• How do you determine the best setting for nonviolent action trainings? (e.g., inside or outside areas of conflict)

I am glad to be back and add my voice once again to the good dialogue that has been going on. I had a problem over the last couple of days with the internet and so could not post any comment let alone go through what others have done but all the same am back and thank you guys very much for keeping the debate alive.

What I have seen let down trainers in the past is the fact that some of them find it very difficult to link the community's theory of change to the real issues that affect them and more so developmental issues. When this is done well and this is also from experience, communities are propmted to start asking difficult questions which is very good when you want to move from theory to practice. When a trainer comes from outside the community it is important for them to quickly learn and understand that community. As mentioned in this theme, flexibility and listening skill are key to this process and I would also want to add the aspect of creativity what others would otherwise call getting outside the box. This helps people look beyond what they are used to which is another process of learning and mostly new things/ideas e.t.c. Trainers should also be alive to the fact that this is also their learning process and so should not behave like its them who know it all.

One more thing on this is that if you asked me I would say the training processes should start outside conflict areas. Some trainees are absolutely new to this and because we do not wnat to scare them away, we should start building confidence in them slowly. My experience with Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) is the same. To be field team members(FTMs) we were first trained in Cluj Napoca - Romania where there is no conflict at all and before the first group was posted they had what they called in-country training where now they were taken to the country they were going to work (in this case Sri Lanka and Philippines) and again under-went another process of training. On all due honesty, I find this very useful and encouraging in terms of process.

Oluoch Dola

Chemchemi Ya Ukweli

P.O.BOX 14370 00800 Nairobi, Kenya

Tel:254-20-4446970 or 254-20-2320346 or 254735244554

Email:oluochdolahotmail [dot] com

Shaazka Beyerle, The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict

Once I was with a group of teachers, discussing the core concepts of people power and nonviolent action,  such as pillars of support, the dynamics of people power (pull vs disrupt), and strategy. All of a suddent I pictured what a child will do when he/she wants something. So I asked the teachers, why are children natural nonviolent strategists? They laughed and we discussed it. Is there anyone in our online dialogue interested to answer this?

It'is a powerful example of how nonviolent action can go on at every level - from the microcosm of the family to a school or university to a city or region all the way to a nation. It's also is an example of nonviolence in action!

Yola, I want to thank you for sharing your US Supreme Court Action showing "nonviolence in action." I'm glad you you made your first post to the New Tactics community. I'm looking forward to hearing more from you.

It's also great that your action shares how video can be used as an advocay tool. I invite everyone to join New Tactics next month for our on-line dialogue featuring video as a tool for advocacy.

I wanted to be sure that we are collecting the examples being shared in an easy to access spot under "Nonviolence in Action"

Yola wrote in this dialogue the following:

Noviolent Direct Action at the USA Supreme Court

Hello, This is my first message to the net. I want to introduce myself with a  link to a nonviolent direct action in Washington. I have it in my page so you can have a version in English and the translation into Spanish. By circulating the video  wider and wider we manage to increase the effects of the action. It's our small contribution in the struggle to achieve Human Rights for everybody. http://www.educarueca.org/spip.php?article683"

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

Hi Caitlin,

Welcome to the dialogue. You are raising very important questions here. The New Tactics project has sought out case examples from the around the world that highlight the successful implementation of tactics. The website has a searchable tactics database and indepth case studes (tactical notebooks) that provide these tactical examples for others to gain insights and ideas about adapting and transfering tactics to their own issues and contexts. At the same time, there is no standardized way in which we measured the success or impact. We have looked at a wide variety of indicators - but first and foremost we have looked at what the organizations had set out to achieve and how successful the tactic was in moving them them toward that goal.

As New Tactics has gathered these cases, we have found that it's a challenge to encourage human rights organizations to take time to reflect and assess the impact of the tactics they have implemented. Reflecting upon our successes helps to frame the failures and less than stellar achievements into the overall perspective of how much we have achieved and how far we've come in our efforts. This energizes not only the people in our own organization but for others as well.

Human rights organizations - and especially nonviolent movements - are hard pressed to move immediately on to the next campaign, keeping the momentum going. In addition, the "success" of a tactic might be measured not by the positive impact of the tactic but in terms of a disporportionate repression that follows that tactic by the power structure. This could indicate the degree to which the power structure feels it is losing control.

You might be interested to take a look at a publication that came out of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy's Measurement and Human Rights Program at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called "Measurement & Human Rights: Tracking progress, assessing impact".

The New Tactics project had an opportunity to participate in their in 2005 and 2006 sessions. I personally attended the 2006 session and found the discussions very helpful and stimulating. I was very interested in the way they framed the measurement and impact issues. I hope the information below will be useful for you and others thinking about how we can better measure and track our progress.

(The information below comes directly from their website)

The Measurement & Human Rights Program has selected four avenues through which to discuss major issues concerning measurement and human rights:

Data collection: How will the human rights community overcome obstacles in making its data collection more rigorous, more comprehensive, and comparable over time?

Data analysis: How will the human rights community accurately identify trends, standardize definitions, and have uniformly rigorous analysis across organizations?

Evidence based policy: How will the human rights community effectively incorporate quantitative data and analysis into the policy-making process?

Impact assessments: How will the human rights community accurately evaluate the impact of their interventions?

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

I'd like to draw your attention to the excellent comment made by Shaazka, "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."

Please refer to her post " Build capacity to make strategic selection of nonviolent action" under "Dealing with Repression" theme to read more.  

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

Hi Cailin!

I  think you've put your finger on an important - and under problematised - question here. As activists and organisers, we spend so much time wrestling with other questions (selecting tactics, keeping our groups healthy and energised, reconciling our inner fears, etc) and (I think) not so much asking 'how will we know when we're succeeding?' 'How do we know when our efforts are really making a difference?'

Last year, the Change Agency initiated an action research project on the topic of evaluating advocacy (http://www.thechangeagency.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=82). We've been identifying, modifying, applying, learning from and sharing frameworks and tools for evaluating campaigns.

One of the key ideas that comes through in several evaluation approaches is the idea of prospective evaluation - developing evaluation frameworks  that are tailored to our unique campaign from the outset. Prospective evaluation requires our campaign group to be clear about what success would look like and how we believe we're going to achieve it before we step outside the door. We're also interested in program logic models. From that page on our website, there are links to online tools that campaigners can use to develop their own program logic models.

What are you learning in your research? I'd love to know about the tools and indicators that are being applied effectively in civilian third party intervention. Is your project online? 

James Whelan ===========   

Oluoch, your comments about the value of story telling are a great reminder. I think there's a risk that when we attempt to pack as much as possible into our training time we can squeeze out the space for this deeper sharing. My colleague Jason MacLeod has been exploring narrative approaches to transformative training, and has attended a workshop with the Dulwich centre (http://www.dulwichcentre.com.au/) here in Australia. You can read a recent article 'narrative ways of working with groups and communities' here: http://www.thechangeagency.org/04_newsletter/newsletter.asp?ID=104

I think there is  lot of potential in the process of building individual stories into a collective story, which as you say really increases ownership.

Great to be talking with you all.

Holly Hammond

www.thechangeagency.org

Linda Sartor, Nonviolent Peacefore

I find using role plays to be a very practical and satisfying experience. We use them for our own learning in a research/writing group of which I'm a part in which we are studying our white supremacist norms and consciousness in our everyday lives as European Americans.

Role plays were also very valuable in the training of trainers we just did for domestic peace teams. I think it is especially relevant when we create role plays on the spot directly from people's stories--an experience they already faced or something they expect to be facing.  

hi linda, thanks for your post.

i guess you've got two comments there and so i'll address both. the first on the idea of having a vision for, not just against, comes up in other posts here and in an organisation i am working with at the moment. the way friends of the earth ttells the story of their work is through 3 themes: 1. mobilise (organise); 2. resist (fight); 3. transform (create fundamentally new institutions and ways of working).

the second about organising -- so what do you mean by the word organising in this context? what kinds of things were people talking about in the training? 

sam la rocca 

Linda Sartor, Nonviolent Peacefore

Yes, not only with regards to training but just with regards to the work of the Nonviolent Peaceforce, we struggle with coming up with measurable evidence that we are accomplishing what we set out to do. In terms of assessments of training, I favor the idea of self assessment. If anyone has a tool for that, I would be very interested in seeing it. If not, I'm also interested in thinking out loud with others about it in order to create one.  

the Change Agency

Hello all

Oluoch Dola after reading your comments, about assessing Nonviolence trainings, I thought of an evaluation tool called Most Significant Change (MSC), that may be a useful tool to assess the impact/influence/effectiveness of Nonviolence Trainings, as it focuses on using qualitative rather than quantitative indicators. Anecdotally I’ve heard about it being used meaningfully in a range of settings. I’ve added some information about MFC below from http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/learning_workroom/pages/default/msc/ and a link  to view a comprehensive MFC guidebook.

 ....MSC involves the collection and systematic participatory interpretation of stories of significant change. Unlike conventional approaches to monitoring, MSC does not employ quantitative indicators, but is a qualitative approach.   The MSC approach was originally developed by Rick Davies through his work with a participatory rural development project in Bangladesh in 1994.

The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is a dialogical, story-based technique. Its primary purpose is to facilitate program improvement by focusing the direction of work towards explicitly valued directions and away from less valued directions. MSC can also make a contribution to summative evaluation through both its process and its outputs. The technique involves a form of continuous values inquiry whereby designated groups of stakeholders search for significant program outcomes and then deliberate on the value of these outcomes in a systematic and transparent manner. - Dart, J. J. & Davies R.J. (forthcoming) "A dialogical story-based evaluation tool: the most significant change technique", American Journal of Evaluation.

 MSC is an emerging technique, and many adaptations have already been made that are discussed throughout the guide. Before getting into modifications, they present an overview of what a 'full' implementation of MSC might look like. Rick Davies and Jessica Hart describe this using ten steps. 1.     How to start and raise interest 2.     Defining the domains of change 3.     Defining the reporting period 4.     Collecting SC stories 5.     Selecting the most significant of the stories 6.     Feeding back the results of the selection process 7.     Verification of stories 8.     Quantification 9.     Secondary analysis and meta-monitoring 10.   Revising the system (Excerpt from The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use by Rick Davies and Jess Dart) Information about the MSC approach has also been made available globally through a MSC approach internet discussion group set up in 2000.  Access to the mailing list and papers concerning the work of Rick, Jessica and others can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mostsignificantchanges  In 2000 the name Most Significant Change Approach was settled on as it embodies one of the most fundamental aspects of the approach: the collection and systematic selection of reported changes.   More information on MSC can be found at www.mande.co.uk which is managed by Rick Davies who developed MSC. Here you can download The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use by Rick Davies and Jess Dart which is a 104 page guidebook that was created in April 2005.  www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf 

Maybe this is somewhat useful, more likely to be if adapted to make it relevant to the community involved in Nonviolence training.

Thankyou all for your rich insights and reflections.

pru gell

Howard,

I'm very glad that you raised these points. I especially want to add to what your wrote about  working in coalition.

A great in-depth case study on our New Tactics website looks at how the Coordinadora in Peru works in coalition and provides excellent insights in how they have been able to maintain the coalition for over 20 years. Here's a brief quote from the overview and link:

"Among the strengths that have made the Coordinadora a significant reference point for the defense and promotion of human rights in Peru, and throughout the Americas, is the ability to make innovative political decisions while maintaining its unity, adhering to principles that guide their actions and utilizing mechanisms to find agreement about priorities in order to act with coordination because 'together we are stronger'." 

I also wanted to say that I really like your idea of using "barometer" type excercise. I've used the "Spectrum of Allies" tool concept to build a "human" spectrum of opinion that I think might be along the same lines of what you're proposing. I'd like to hear more about your idea.

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

Corina,

This sounded so intriguing that it sent me looking for more information on Marshall Rosenberg and The Center for Nonviolent Communication.

Here is the link to the Nonviolent Communication Guide that can be downloaded from their website.

It's a simple stated - but very profound - model of communication. As stated on the website - "Both sides of the NVC model: empathically listening and honestly expressing, use the four steps of the model: observations, feelings, needs, requests."

Definitely worth checking out - thank you Corina for bringing it to our attention.

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

Linda Sartor, Nonviolent Peacefore

 I'm interested in knowing more about how, Miki Kashtan was able to use the recipe of NVC without the unnatural feeling.

I'm also interested in how people from other parts of the world than Europe and North America take to NVC. 

Howard,

Thank you for sharing this wonderful resource with us. I'm thrilled that you'll incorporate our "tactical notebooks" into this incredibly rich resource.

I'll send you the reference for one of the first resistence movements of multinational corporations - the Nestle boycott. I didn't see any references to that campaign in your bibliography. That is another example of a movement founded on a tactic- boycotting - and finding that it accomplish much more than it set out to do.

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

Shaazka,

Thanks for putting this list of resources together for us. I had not known that the books "A Force More Powerful" and "Confronting the Truth" were available in so many languages. That's great! 

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics in Human Rights Program Manager

IN response to Shaazka's post recommending several excellent books on nonviolent struggle i would like to offer a two participatory and experiential training tools (below) around creating resilience in the face of repression. The first tool is based on Thalhammer's book The Power of Ordinarty People and looks at the processes of becoming a courageous resister (someone who takes action against injustice at some cost to themselves and their close associates and sustains this resistance over time).

The second tool is based on Schock's book: Unarmed Insurrections and explores in an experiential way how decentralised network structures can be more resilient in repressive contexts.

I also want to recommend Robert Burrowes book, The Strategy of Nonviolent Defence. It is very dense in parts but well worth persevering with. Burrowes combines both the principled nature of Gandhian nonviolence with the pragmatic hard headeness of Clauswitz to generate some unique contributions to strategic nonviolent struggle. 

Jason MacLeod, The Change Agency

The Journey

 Objectives 

• To understand how people become courageous resistors
• To reflect on your own experience of taking action against injustice and becoming a courageous resistor

 Time needed 60 minutes Resources needed Paper, pens and crayons and handouts: “Factors Leading to People Becoming Courageous Resisters” and “The Journey to Becoming a Courageous Resister: Decisions at Crossroads” How it’s done 

1. Closed eye mediation (see the section on training methodology and tools for more information about closed eye sessions). Ask people to think of a time when you personally took action against injustice at some risk to yourself and/or your friends and family. What was the situation that you put yourself in order to address injustice? What inner resources or personal experiences did you draw on to do that? What networks helped or supported you?
2. Ask people to reflect on that experience. Write up the three questions above and then invite people to draw something that reflects their response and experience in relation to the three questions about.
3. Share drawings in small groups. Harvest in a large group.
4. List: the preconditions that enabled people to take action, the networks that supported people to take action, and ways the context also supported action.
5. Generalisation. Share insights from the book Courageous Resistance: The Power of Ordinary People (see the handouts) – what courageous resistors are and how people become courageous resistors.
6. Application: Ask people to think of an injustice. One you have been aware of but have not taken action to address. Identify which crossroads you are at and what your next step is.

 Other notes What is a courageous resistor? A courageous resistor is defined as a person who voluntarily engages in other-orientated, largely selfless behaviour with a significantly high risk or cost to themselves or their associates. Second their actions are the result of a conscious decision. Third, their efforts are sustained over time (pg 5).  Three factors influence how people become courageous resistors: preconditions, networks, and context (see the handout: “Factors Leading to People Becoming Courageous Resisters”). The journey to becoming a courageous resistor involves facing a series of crossroads in which decisions need to be made. Alternative pathways lead to people becoming bystanders or perpetrators. People first have to become aware of the issue. The second crossroad is that the issue it has to be interpreted as an injustice. The third crossroad is that the person needs to accept personal responsibility and identify possible choices for action (the fourth crossroad). The fifth crossroad is taking action and the sixth crossroad is sustaining action over time. All of these paths transform the person, networks and the context. (See the handout: “The Journey to Becoming a Courageous Resister: Decisions at Crossroads”) Where this tool comes from 

Jason MacLeod. Taken from material in Courageous Resistance: The Power of Ordinary People, by Kristina E. Thalhammer, Paula L. O'Loughlin, Myron Peretz Glazer, Penina Migdal Glazer, Sam McFarland, Sharon Toffey Shepela, and Nathan Stoltzfus, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

The Wink and the Generals

 Objective 

• To introduce theory about the resilience of decentralised network resistance structures

 Time needed 60minutes Resources needed Enough small cards with the word “Freedom” written on them, handouts: “In Repressive Contexts Decentralised Network Structures Facilitate Resilience” and “Building Resilient Movement Structures”  How it’s done Firstly, get everyone to form a large circle (it is important that everyone can see each other). Ask for 2 volunteers (in a group of 30-40, 1 for a group of 20 or less). Explain that everyone lives in a repressive society and that you are all deeply involved in the struggle for peace, justice and human rights. However, this person (point to one of the volunteers) heads up the state intelligence services and this person (point to the other volunteer) is a general in the army. Their job is to destroy the movement using before you succeed in carrying out your strategy. Your job as leaders and activists is to carry out the strategy before your movement is destroyed and stay alive. (One of the trainers now takes the General and the head of the intelligence services outside and explains the rules of the game and their task – to destroy the movement by catching anyone winking – see below). Explain that you have set up an organizational structure to support your movement. Your leader is a charismatic, smart, outspoken and fearless activist. He is supported by an executive of (up to 5 members for large groups, and 1-3, for smaller groups). Select the leader and the executive. This leader and the executive have developed a finally crafted strategic plan of action that they believe will achieve the goals you have all been struggling for. Their challenge is to communicate the strategy to all the activists before the intelligence services and army destroys the movement. Here’s how the game works: The leader needs to pass on the strategy to each member of the executive. The “strategy” is passed on by “winking” – and the “wink” has to be seen by the person it was sent to. The leader needs to pass the “strategy” to all members of the executive first. Once this has been done the leader and the executive can then pass the “strategy” on to other activists. Activists can only receive the “strategy”, they cannot pass it on. Once an activist has received the “strategy” they can turn over their card (hand out cards) so that the “Freedom” can be seen. Make sure that the ‘Freedom” is not seen until you receive the “strategy” (the “wink”). The leader and executive cannot turn their card over until the entire strategy has been passed on the rest of the movement. If, however, the head of intelligence or the general sees anyone “winking”, they and the person they were winking to, are removed from the game.  Ask for any questions. Demonstrate how the game works. When you are sure that everyone understands start the game. The game continues until the strategy is passed on to everyone in the movement or the movement is destroyed. Debrief. Then replay the game. Choose a new head of intelligence and general and take them outside. Choose with new leaders and a new executive. But this time tell the activists (not the head of intelligence and general) that the rules have been changed. This time there is no one “leader”. Instead all the members of the executive are leaders. They start the game with the strategy and can “pass on” the strategy to other activists. Once an activist has received the strategy s/he can also “pass it on” to others. Make sure everyone understands then bring in the new head of intelligence and general and start the game. Debrief Generalisation questions: What are the differences between the two organizational structures?What minimized the resilience and effectiveness of the first structure?What maximized the resilience and effectiveness of the second structure?In what way is this game similar to what has happened in x context?What are the lessons from this game for movement in x context? 

Go through the handouts: Building Resilient Movement Structures and In Repressive Contexts Decentralised Network Structures Facilitate Resilience.

 Where this tool comes from Jason MacLeod (based on the game wink murder)