This is the last article you can read this month
You can read more article this month
You can read more articles this month
Sorry your limit is up for this month
Writing about the recent death of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Guardian columnist Afua Hirsch made an extraordinary claim about the ending of apartheid in South Africa in 1994.
“Columnists did not cut it. Activists could not have done it. Peaceful protest did not do it. Sports boycotts, books, badges and car boot sales did not do it,” she argued. “It took revolutionaries, pure and simple. People willing to break the law, to kill and be killed.”
Fellow Guardian writer Owen Jones tweeted in support: “Apartheid was brought down by revolutionaries, not peaceful protest. Brilliant piece by @afuahirsch.”
Despite these dismissive assertions by two of the most influential voices on the British left, in reality “nonviolent action proved to be a major factor in the downfall of apartheid,” as Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco wrote in the Journal of Modern African Studies in 1999.
Professor Lester Kurtz, of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at George Mason University in Virginia, summarises the key events in a 2010 article for the International Centre on Non-violent Conflict.
Founded in 1912, the African National Congress (ANC) protested non-violently against white supremacism in South African for several decades with few gains. Frustrated by this failure Nelson Mandela and others established and led an armed resistance (Umkhonto we Sizwe), which was also unable to bring down the oppressive system.
“In the end a concerted grassroots non-violent civil resistance movement in coalition with international support and sanctions forced the white government to negotiate,” Kurtz argues.
Writing in 1987, US theologian Walter Wink argued the 1980s movement to end apartheid was “probably the largest grassroots eruption of diverse non-violent strategies in a single struggle in human history.”
The protests that toppled Tunisian Ben Ali’s government in Tunisia in 2011 were largely non-violent
If you are looking for a short and accessible account of the campaign check out the brilliant 2011 book Counter Power: Making Change Happen by grassroots activist Tim Gee.
That Hirsch and Jones could get it so wrong highlights the tragic failure of proponents and scholars of non-violent action to educate progressives and the wider British public about the rich and impactful history of non-violent struggle across the world.
Yes, there is a certain level of awareness about famous instances of non-violent resistance such as the campaign Mahatma Gandhi led that helped to end British rule in India and the Civil Rights movement in the ‘50s and ‘60s US.
Yet our knowledge of even these struggles is often sketchy and superficial. More broadly, many associate non-violence with passivity and moderation.
Hirsh incorrectly assumes one cannot be both non-violent and “willing to break the law… and be killed.”
In practice the key to successful non-violent campaigns is their ability to confront and coerce centres of power — in short, to seek out conflict.
Writing about the portrayal of US civil rights leader Martin Luther King in the 2014 film Selma, Fast Company magazine’s Jessica Leber notes the non-violent campaign he led “was incredibly aggressive, brave, and strategic — in many cases aiming to force the state into violent opposition.”
For anyone wishing to understand the power of non-violence the seminal text is 2011’s Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Non-violent Conflict by US academics Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan.
The book does two important things: first it shows that campaigns of non-violent resistance have been twice as successful as their violent counterparts in achieving their goals.
And second, the huge database (comprised of 323 campaigns between 1900 and 2006) that their findings are based on provides the bones of what is effectively a secret history of successful non-violent struggles.
Who knew about the mass non-violent campaigns that overthrew dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador in 1944? Or that people power put an end to President Marcos’s oppressive 20-year reign in the Philippines in 1986?
Large scale non-violent struggles also brought down Augusto Pinochet in Chile in 1990 and played a key role in the ousting of the Shah of Iran in 1979.
Successful non-violent campaigns
have the ability to confront and coerce centres of power
Mali, Kenya, Nigeria and Malawi have all experienced successful non-violent struggles against dictatorships.
The campaigns that won independence from the British in Ghana and Zambia were largely non-violent, as were the protests that toppled Tunisian Ben Ali’s government in Tunisia and kicked off the so-called Arab Spring.
Writing on the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog in 2016 Chenoweth and Stephan highlight an important historical shift: “The success rates of non-violent resistance peaked in the 1990s, but the current decade has seen a sharp decline in the success rates of non-violent resistance.”
They suggest a few reasons for this change, including the likelihood state opponents of non-violent campaigns may be getting smart to non-violent strategies and tactics, and cleverly adapting their responses to minimise the movements’ challenges to the status quo.
This is certainly concerning. However, Chenoweth and Stephan highlight that though their effectiveness has waned, non-violent campaigns are still succeeding more often than violent campaigns.
And with violent resistance turning out to be so disastrous in Libya and Syria, it is more important than ever for non-violent action to receive the recognition it deserves.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by joining the 501 club.
Just £5 a month gives you the opportunity to win one of 17 prizes, from £25 to the £501 jackpot.
By becoming a 501 Club member you are helping the Morning Star cover its printing, distribution and staff costs — help keep our paper thriving by joining!
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by become a member of the People’s Printing Press Society.
The Morning Star is a readers’ co-operative, which means you can become an owner of the paper too by buying shares in the society.
Shares are £1 each — though unlike capitalist firms, each shareholder has an equal say. Money from shares contributes directly to keep our paper thriving.
Some union branches have taken out shares of over £500 and individuals over £100.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by donating to the Fighting Fund.
The Morning Star is unique, as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media. We offer a platform for those who would otherwise never be listened to, coverage of stories that would otherwise be buried.
The rich don’t like us, and they don’t advertise with us, so we rely on you, our readers and friends. With a regular donation to our monthly Fighting Fund, we can continue to thumb our noses at the fat cats and tell truth to power.
Donate today and make a regular contribution.