Power flows from a transaction between the ruler and the ruled. If power were a liquid, it would find its source in the consent of the governed. Civil resistance is consent removed, striking at the core dynamics of power. Is this how civil resisters channel power for change?

I am conducting an in-depth research project to document and study cases of citizen participation and nonviolent civic action to fight corruption, in order to distill general lessons learned and best practices. The focus is on what people--organized together, exerting their collective power--are doing to fight corruption as they themselves have discerned it. The project will examine the skills, strategies, objectives, and demands of nonviolent civic campaigns and movements, rather than the phenomenon of corruption itself, or the conditions under which it occurs.

We offered a practical definition of nonviolent struggle earlier in this series. We now turn to "civil resistance", a term often used as a synonym of nonviolent action. Is there a difference between the two? Why use one over the other? Drawing from a new release on the subject, find out what the rationale is for using "civil resistance" as a term that covers most of the ground associated with nonviolent action, without some of its unwanted aura of ascetic faith or doctrine.

“An apostle of nonviolence.” “Preaching nonviolence”. We hear these
expressions so often, we don’t question them. But there is a crucial
difference between soporific preachifying and nonviolent action. So
let's clear this up.