Chenoweth and Stephan's arguments and research show that non violent campaigns are more successful than violent campaigns against violent political regimes. Though violent protests can show to be successful and they do get the point across though in a very different way, non violent protests I will have to agree, are the best and most efficient way to go about combating a violent opposition. With cases such as Dr. Martin Luther King, and Ghandi being two of the most noted cases. (not to say that there are not many more)
The two writers argue 2 main points as to why a nonviolent approaches are strategically more sound than those that promote violence. The first argument is t hat when a violent force (especially a regime) tries to repress an non-violent campaign, the repression may backfire. "First, repressing nonviolent campaigns may backfire. In backfire, an unjust act—often violent repression—recoils against its originators, often resulting in the breakdown of obedience among regime supporters, mobilization of the population against the regime, and international condemnation of the regime" (Cenoweth & Stephan, 11) In turn when a violent regime confronts a non-violent regime with violence, it sends a message of hostility that will label that country hostile. I associate this with the, Nuke the Middle East comments. Though acts of terrorism may be common in the area the amount of civilian and peaceful citizens in the area would make a no holds bar bombing unacceptable (as well as unlawful in regards to international laws) They also mention a breakdown in support for the violent regime. I agree. As a violent force aggressively challenges a nonviolent movement that is just that, non violent, support tends to diminish from the regime causing a power shift and essentially the regime could collapse due to exhausting funds and lack of support. That is a very interesting and true perspective of a non violent protest strategy that I had not thought of and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document