PO377 ETHNIC CONFLICT AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Week 14 Seminar:Non-Violent Strategies for Change

Main Overarching Question

Are non-violent strategies a viable

alternative to violence in order to achieve political change in societies divided by ethno-national conflict?

Note that there are also significant problems in assuming that violence will bring about change.

Seminar Questions

1. Critically assess the motivations for non-violent action according to the non-violence literature.

2. Which factors make the success of non-violent strategies for change more likely?

3. Under which circumstances are ethnic contenders more likely to choose non-violent over violent strategies for change?

When preparing your arguments for the group work, try to make references to today’s readings wherever appropriate.

What is conflict?

“Conflict is an inherently adversarial process

involving the direct exchange of sanctions, either

violent or nonviolent, with a view to inflicting costs on one’s opponents, inducing them to change their behavior.” (Ackerman and Kruegler 1994: 2-3)

Outline of today’s group work

In order to discuss the strengths and limitations of non-violence, imagine the following (hypothetical) situation:

In 2009, Thaya Idaikkadar, Chairman of the British Tamil Councillors and Associates (BTCA), called for the establishment of a new, non-violent group to achieve the political and social objectives of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

A significant number of people in Sri Lanka and in the diaspora followed Idaikkadar's call and are considering organising some non-violent strategies for change such as marches, protests etc.

Outline of today’s group work (2)

However, they are uncertain whether non-violence is indeed the best method to achieve their goals and have come to you as veterans of 1960s protest campaigns for advice.

Group 1 represents the civil rights movement centred around Martin Luther King, Jr. and should argue in favour of non-violent strategies for change. Group 2 represents the Black Panthers and should highlight the limitations of non-violent strategies for change.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Nonviolence as “the only road to freedom”

“The American racial revolution has been a revolution

to ‘get in’ rather than to overthrow. We want to

share in the American economy, the housing market,

the educational system and the social opportunities.

The goal itself indicates that a social change in

America must be nonviolent. If one is in search of a

better job, it does not help to burn down the factory.

... To destroy anything, person or property, can't bring us closer to the goal

that we seek. The nonviolent strategy has been to dramatize the evils of our

society in such a way that pressure is brought to bear against those evils by

the forces of good will in the community and change is produced.”

(Martin Luther King, Jr. 1966, Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom)

The limitations of nonviolence according to Huey P. Newton and the Black Panthers

“Black people had been taught nonviolence; it was deep in us. What good, however, was nonviolence when the police were determined to rule by force?” (Newton 1973, Revolutionary Suicide)

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off

such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” (Black Panther Party 1966, The Ten-Point

Program)

Nonviolent strategies for change

Violent strategies for change

Rationale behind this type of strategy

Likely reaction from the government

Likely reaction from other parts of the society

Likely reaction from the international community

Conditions under which these strategies are most likely to succeed

How can nonviolent action produce political change?

Sharp (1973) identifies four mechanisms:

1. Conversion;

2. accommodation;

3. nonviolent coercion;

4. disintegration.

Major Unarmed Insurrections 1978-2001 (Schock 2005: 4)

Possible responses to political oppression and injustice (Schock 2005: 13)

The Etiology of Ethnopolitical Conflict (Gurr 2000 Peoples Versus States: 70)