![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \""We tried it, and it didn't work": The strategy double standard\""){kind=small}
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendIn this fourth posting in our series on nonviolent struggle, we tackle a frequent argument that nonviolent methods were tried and found lacking. What arguments and facts can you use when people argue that riotous or armed actions are the only options left, that only violent force has been shown to be effective? Well, turns out there's a trap waiting for you to step in, a fundamental fault in logic that you all might want to be armed to fight off with sound argument and scientific facts. You can also download this piece as a one-page pdf.
We often hear that nonviolent action was proved ineffective, while the belief in the effectiveness of armed resistance and guerilla war often goes unchallenged. Why?
When a nonviolent operation fails to achieve its objectives, the whole strategic choice of nonviolent action is discredited. When a guerilla group fails, it is rarely taken as proof that engaging in terrorism or armed warfare is a futile strategy.
If one instance of nonviolent struggle — or worse, a limited subset of nonviolent tactics (demonstrations, boycotts) — is unsuccessful, it is often taken as proof that nonviolent action has no strategic value. Meanwhile, if an armed insurgency fails to deliver, it is always explained in relation to its specific context, the tactics used, the harshness of the repression, external factors, and so on.
Unrealistic expectations are thus imposed on nonviolent action that are not imposed on violent resistance. It seems nonviolent action has to succeed perfectly, and produce impeccable results all the time before it is considered a viable option. Conversely, the widespread assumption that violence offers greater efficacy does not require any evidence.
Such logic is based on a flawed double standard. As long as more stringent criteria are used to assess the value of the nonviolent technique when compared to violent action, the nonviolent option can't be seen as an effective course of action.
It is high time we insisted the same standards be applied to evaluate the respective merits of nonviolent and violent struggle, and assess their relative successes and failures in actual conflicts.
At long last, a few statistical studies have now been conducted on the relative efficacy of violent and nonviolent resistance. Interestingly, these have found that campaigns driven by civilians wielding nonviolent "weapons" (i.e. boycotts, strikes, protests, civil disobedience, parallel structures, etc.) have a higher rate of success than those using guerrilla warfare or terrorist attacks.
See Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by M. Stephan & E. Chenoweth (you can also read a short review); and How Freedom is Won: From Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy, by Freedom House.
--
Philippe Duhamel
interTactica — a liberation blog
New pieces will soon be added to our "Why Nonviolent Struggle" popularization project. Please add your comments to help improve these drafts.
Previous piece in this series. Next piece.
