Defense, resistance and strength have always been thought of almost exclusively in categories of violence.
At least when it comes to resistance against particularly ruthless autocrats and unscrupulous dictators, the
opinion is almost unanimously held that violence can only be overcome by counter-violence, that war brings peace, etc.
Ever since the "turning point" proclaimed by then Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the German Bundestag in February 2022,
there has been an enormous narrowing shift in discourse towards military arguments - and not just in Germany.
It is no longer discussed whether military force should be used at all, but only how many weapons should be
supplied, what type of weapon, when this should happen, etc.
Pacifists are insulted as "lumpenpacifists" or derided as naive and unworldly.
Diplomacy is of secondary importance, non-violent actions are discredited.
This is often justified with the so-called "right of self-defense" (Art. 51 UN Charter), which
Ukraine or Israel, for example, are entitled to.
Of course, every state has this right.
However, self-defense should ideally be carried out using the most effective method.
Most people seem to view military defense as the most effective form of defense from the outset.
But are they really right? Are there really no alternatives to war, violence and arms shipments, as the mass
media - which seem to have become the mouthpiece of military advocates - would have us believe?
Does defense always have to be military in order to be effective?
Or are there alternative forms of civil defense that are just as effective or even more successful?
And which, as a side effect, prevent the destruction of entire cities and large areas of land and
drastically reduce the number of human casualties?
Because one thing is certain: wars have often caused terrible destruction and bloodbaths
without actually achieving the desired goals.
Erica Chenoweth of Wesleyan University in Middleton, USA - a recognized expert on issues related to terrorism - together with
her colleague Maria J. Stephan, examined all known conflicts worldwide for the right to self-determination,
the ousting of political leaders or the expulsion of military occupying forces between 1900 and 2006.
Of these, 218 were armed and 105 were non-violent.
Her study was published in 2011 under the title: "Why Civil Resistance Works. The Strategic Logic of
Nonviolent Conflict" and has now also been published in German .
The study closed a research gap by answering the question of whether the reconquest of occupied territories, resistance
against occupation, dictatorships, repressive regimes and the overthrow of unpopular governments is more
successful through non-violent or violent resistance.
The study was therefore a pioneering achievement at international level that provided impetus
and exposed common reservations as untenable.
The study clearly showed that non-violent forms of resistance were almost twice as successful as armed
resistance - in Europe as well as in America, Asia and Africa.
In the period from 2000 to 2006, non-violent actions were even five times more successful than armed uprisings.
The authors state: "...especially in campaigns seeking regime change or liberation from foreign
occupation, non-violent resistance (is) clearly superior".
These results have not been refuted to date, as they are based on an extensive database and
thorough scientific analysis. It led to clear results.
According to the authors of the study, there is no guarantee that non-violent resistance will lead to success.
However, at 22 percent, the success rate for violent actions was significantly lower than for non-violent
resistance, over 50 percent of which was successful.
Interesting detail: Mixed forms of movements with large non-violent resistance and violent wings are
also less successful than purely non-violent campaigns.
Mixing violence with non-violent actions does not lead to success.
The authors of the study considered a campaign to be successful if 100 percent of its objectives were
achieved within one year of the peak of activities.
According to the study, successful non-violent campaigns included the Iranian revolution (1977-1979)
and the Philippine People Power Movement (1983-1986).
In 2005, sustained and systematic non-violent action ended a foreign occupation in Lebanon .
"In East Timor," according to the authors, "a non-violent resistance movement helped to successfully
remove Indonesian troops from East Timor and gain independence for the annexed territory."
What does non-violent resistance mean in practice?
Various forms of action are conceivable.
In the examples just mentioned, there was non-violent resistance with millions of participants in the form of
mass protests, strikes and organized non-cooperation.
This systematically deprived the enemy of its political, economic and military sources of power.
This was done through the active support of businessmen, workers, trade unions, students, professionals, clergy, youth,
women, the poor, farmers associations and other groups on whose obedience and resources the regime depended.
There were creative actions, such as civil disobedience by Iranian workers in electricity plants.
These switched off the power for two hours every evening to interrupt the state evening news and offer the
cover of darkness to demonstrators who broke the curfew.
There were often so many demonstrators on the streets during non-violent resistance actions that the police
and security forces of the opponent did not have the resources or personnel to enforce bans.
After all, you can't suddenly put tens of thousands of people in prison when you only have a few free prison cells.
For example, tens of thousands of people formed a wall to stop tanks and pro-government troops.
Instead of attacking the regime's security forces, the civilian demonstrators sat down in front of the tanks and greeted the
soldiers with peaceful symbols such as flowers, chocolates and orangeade - and called on the soldiers to join the opposition.
Non-violent actions have also been successful where a violent attempt had failed only a few years earlier, for
example in the case of the Philippine People Power movement.
Why is it that, on balance, non-violent campaigns have a much higher chance of success?
The authors of the study cite the following reasons:
1. non-violent campaigns can mobilize many more people
The average violent campaign had 50,000 participants, while non-violent campaigns had an average of 200,000 participants.
This allowed for broader actions that increased the cost to the regimes of maintaining the status quo.
Non-violent campaigns are also more open to the participation of women and older people, as these activities
are associated with less risk than violent resistance.
When a broad spectrum of the population is reached, a regime - according to Erica Chenoweth - can hardly
maintain its power with a participation rate of ten percent.
Yes, even with only five percent participation it will be difficult for the regime.
2. the people involved are more difficult to isolate
Participants in nonviolent campaigns often represent very different parts of the population, as people of different genders,
ages, religions, ethnicities, ideologies, professional or socio-economic status often participate in nonviolent campaigns.
This makes it more difficult for opponents to isolate participants and enforce repression.
3. nonviolent campaigns have more opportunities to develop new tactics and ideas because of
their diversity and larger number of participants
According to the study, the successes were independent of whether the regime concerned was authoritarian, strong
or weak, or attempted to suppress the campaign by force.
Other advantages of non-violent resistance are:
- the much shorter average duration (3 years instead of 9 years for violent combat)
- far fewer deaths, injuries, destruction, traumatization
- a much higher chance that subsequent democratization will take hold within 5 years of the conflict.
If violent uprisings are successful, there will still be no democratic conditions in the country in the long term.
The consequences are often retaliatory measures against supporters of the former regime, disregard for minority
rights, etc., so that the situation in the country after armed conflicts is often even more repressive than before.
- Non-violent resistance has a lower risk of subsequent civil war - because almost every second successful armed
struggle generates a new armed struggle within 10 years.
The view that violence can only be overcome with counter-violence is therefore wrong.
There are much more successful alternatives to military force which, unlike military operations, can bring about real,
sustainable, just and democratic peace in the country concerned.
In the meantime, Erica Chenoweth has conducted further research between 2004 and 2019 and discovered the following:
Non-violent uprisings are still more successful than violent ones.
However, governments have adapted better to non-violent resistance.
Dictators and authoritarian regimes have learned to suppress non-violent movements.
The non-violent resistance movement faces the following challenges in the 21st century:
- Neutral reporting is made more difficult by censorship and surveillance, fake news is spread by regimes.
- Non-violent movements with violent wings have increased.
Agents provocateurs are increasingly bringing violence into a movement.
An agent provocateur is a person who acts on behalf of authorities such as the police, public prosecutor's
office or secret services to infiltrate a group or organization and induce its members to commit unlawful acts.
These violent wings diminish the success of a movement.
Therefore: Beware of targeted infiltration by people willing to use violence!
- Digital actions and opportunities are overrated.
Although the Internet can be used for short-term mobilization, this does not usually lead to long-term
campaigns where people have to know each other personally.
- Too little time and energy is often invested in planning campaigns and promoting cohesion within a movement.
A successful resistance campaign requires strong networks of groups in which people know each other
well and support each other in the event of repression.
Despite these challenges, non-violent resistance is still more successful.
Why hasn't the non-violent path been taken much more often so far?
The authors of the study suspect that this is due to a lack of knowledge about the nature,
possibilities and chances of success of non-violent resistance.
It is no wonder that this study is mostly concealed by politicians, the media and academics.
After all, the profit gained from wars would be jeopardized if the realization that there are much more
effective methods than armed force were to prevail.
This is because the arms industry's business model is based on the narrative that violent resistance is necessary and essential.
Conclusion: We don't need to become fit for war, we need to become fit for peace!
Spread this knowledge further, e.g. by sharing this program on social media!
Only if the findings of this study prevail can further terrible bloodbaths and destruction be prevented, and the war
profiteers can no longer generate profits from the suffering of people and the destruction of entire countries.
Don't rely on online social media, but get to know like-minded people you can trust in real life.
Only together can the spiral of violence be broken.
We need people who stand united for peace and lead by example.
Kla.TV is happy to support the local networking of peace-loving people with the help of
the contact form on www.kla.tv/vernetzung.