Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new phenomenon has emerged for the removal of dictatorial governments. In Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia and Lebanon "color revolutions" brought about new, more democratic models of governance. Most recently, the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak was ousted by a Jasmine Revolution. These revolutions differed from the other, bloodier revolutions of the past in that the revolutionaries did not use armed uprisings, guerrilla tactics or terrorism to free themselves from their oppressors. Instead, they adopted a series of tactics which have come to be referred to as "non-violent resistance". This resistance involves a series of techniques used to expose dictators and wrest legitimacy from their authoritarian regimes. They are meant to force capitulation which eventually leads to a democratic transition.
Using references to Martin Luther King or Mahatma Ghandi, these revolutions have been popularly described as being "moral" responses to the immoral repression of the autocrats. This, however, is a miss-conception. As Peter Ackerman, member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and expert in non-violent action said in his book A Force More Powerful:
"Most of those who have used nonviolent action have not primarily been motivated by a desire to be nonviolent or to make peace. They have wanted to fight for their rights or interests, but by means other than guns or bombs - either because they have seen that violence had been ineffectual or because they had no violent force at their disposal."
In essence, non-violent resistance (like armed uprising) rests on the dynamics of power. The powerless use non-violent resistance because they lack other means by which to wrest political control from the dictators. The theory of non-violence is that the sheer, overwhelming numbers of those oppressed, when acting in unison and carrying out activities of "civil disobedience", will make a country ungovernable. Through this strategy the resulting ungovernability will force the hand of the security services; either they obey orders from the dictator and unleash an assault on fellow citizens or they capitulate and shepherd the demise of the tyrant. Most of the times when democratic transition has occurred, it has also been because the strongman has been governing with a veneer of legitimacy and is unwilling or unable to remove this facade. Taking advantage of this confluence of circumstances, non-violent revolutionaries have brought freedom to millions of people across the world.
Nevertheless, there are times when non-violent resistance is ineffective. When the dictatorial governments in question are so brutal and so contemptuous of international opinion that they are prepared to mete out un-inhibited cruelty, the activities of resistance are destined to failure. This has been the case in Burma during the "Saffron Revolution", in Iran during the "Green Revolution", and in the current revolution in Libya.
During these delicate moments, international support is more -- not less -- justified. Failed "color revolutions" expose the leaders for who they really are. If there had been any doubt about Ahmadinejad's contempt for his people, or Gaddafi's true nature, they have been laid to rest. During the "Green Revolution", the Obama administration famously failed to act to protect innocent civilians and serve as the guarantor of freedom for an oppressed people. Whatever the real politic that accompanied that fateful decision, the result has made the world a more dangerous place. The administration has been fortuitously given a second chance, an opportunity to redeem itself. As Muammar Gaddafi uses the heavy machinery of war on his own people, President Obama can use this moment to unequivocally and uncontroversially stand up against a tyrant. He has, in his hands, the ability to free the Libyan people from a half century of brutality. He must now assume the courage of his convictions when he said in Cairo:
"I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere."
It is easy to stand on the sidelines and root for the success of the non-violent activists. It takes more courage to discern when these actions are futile, and act acordingly. President Obama's words are a part of what has brought such important changes to the Middle East. They are words that struck a cord in the hearts of the Libyan people. The time has come, in Libya, to make those words a reality.
Follow Joel D. Hirst on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joelhirst
Shane Claiborne: My Easter Letter to the IRS
Michael N. Nagler and Phil Cousineau: 'Beyond Forgiveness': Atoning for the Past to Repair the World
You go on to say that "When the dictatorial governments in question are so brutal and so contemptuous of international opinion that they are prepared to mete out un-inhibited cruelty, the activities of resistance are destined to failure". Again, this is simply not true. Most tyrants (including the British vis a vis Gandhi) are quite prepared to mete out un-inhibited cruelty. Mubarak was not overthrown because of a lack of cruelty, he was overthrown because the army refused to brutalize the people. That did not happen by accident.
There are, of course, times when nonviolence will fail, just as there are times when violent strategies will fail. But the success or failure of nonviolent movements has little to do with the morality or lack thereof of the tyrants. If any further evidence is needed for this, consider that in the three main instances in which nonviolence was attempted against Hitler, they all succeeded.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Egyptian revolution was how the protesters were able to wrestle legitimacy from the government and senior military officers by greeting soldiers as brothers and comrades. When the soldiers responded, Mubarak's fate was sealed. Transferring that legitimacy onto parties and candidates worthy of legitimacy will be the next test.
Gaddafi has certainly lost legitimacy outside of Libya, but he has not lost it within his military and perhaps not even lost enough of it within certain tribes. The UN authorized actions to level the fighting chances for the rebels will give them a second chance, but may actually add to the difficulty of the rebel's need to establish their own independent legitimacy. Earlier entire battalions defected to the rebels on the basis of the rebellion's moral authority, that will be less likely now that outside force has become a factor. If the tide turns, somehow the rebel's need to re-frame the situation to capture the future in the minds of their countrymen. If they can do that, even the Quds Force will begin questioning loyalty within it's ranks.
" When Non-violence isn't enough, violence makes it so."
Said I.
Joel may have over-estimated the influence of external factors, but know that those external factors weigh heavily too. For example, Mubarak received a lot of phone calls from other presidents informing him that his time was up, and he went. Foreign media has played a lot in these revolutions as well, and these are external factors.