PO377 Ethnic Conflict and Political Violence

1
PO377 Ethnic Conflict and Political Violence

• Week 13
• Non-Violent Strategies for Change

2
Lecture Outline

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

3
Defining Ethnic Conflict

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

4
What is Non-Violent Action?

• Nonviolent strategies for change include strikes,
  boycotts, sit-ins, protests, marches, petitions,
  walk-outs, law breaking, mock funerals....
• Gandhi on the Salt March 1930

5
What is Non-Violent Action? (2)

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

6
What is Non-Violent Action? (3)

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

7
What is Non-Violent Action? (4)

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

8
What is Non-Violent Action? (5)

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

9
Famous Practitioners

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

10
Famous Practitioners (2)

• Gandhi
• 1915 Gandhi returned to India. Led national
  resistance movement 1920-22 using non-violent
  non-cooperation with British colonizers.
  Imprisoned. 1930-31 salt campaign, acted against
  oppressive salt laws. Imprisoned. 1942-44 Quit
  India campaign.
• India granted independence 1947. Gandhi
  assassinated in 1948 by Hindu extremist objecting
  to his call for Hindu-Muslim unity.

11
Famous Practitioners (3)

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

12
Famous Practitioners (4)

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

13
Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance

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

14
Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance (2)

1. One of the points of civil disobedience is to
   communicate with and educate others the use of
   indiscriminate violence, particularly against
   people, turns other people against the cause
   (Zinn 2003)
2. Violent conflict is too costly (Zunes 1994)
3. Unarmed methods are more effective (Zunes 1994).

15
Can Non-Violent Action Bring About Change?

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

16
Source Schock (2005 4)
17
Can Non-Violent Action Bring About Change? (2)

• Why civil resistance works (Stephan and Chenoweth
  2008)
• Commitment to non-violent methods
• Enhances domestic legitimacy
• Encourages more broad-based participation in
  resistance
• Enhances international legitimacy.
• Regime violence against non-violent movements is
  likely to backfire, showing the violent regime in
  such a negative light that shifts of opinion
  occur (Sharps political jiu-jitsu).

18
Pop Quiz

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

19
Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict

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

20
Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict (2)

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

21
Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict (3)

• Civil disobedience theory is overwhelmingly
  directed at political contexts of liberal
  democracy and the practice is largely associated
  with political protest in liberal democratic
  systems. Rawls theory of civil disobedience is
  explicitly directed at situations of near
  justice, i.e. legitimately established
  democratic authority.
• Not particularly helpful for many contexts of
  ethno-national conflict and/or non-liberal
  democratic systems.

22
Summary

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

23
Summary (2)

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