This post continues our discussion of how oppressed peoples can use strategic nonviolent resistance as a key component of their struggle to liberate themselves from their oppressors. As a guide to our discussion, we are continuing our journey through
Gene Sharp's book
From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to
From D to D). Both the book and our discussion of it continue to be relevant in these days for many people who live under exploitative, authoritarian regimes throughout the world. This relevance also applies to the historically marginalized communities of color in the United States, even though Joe Biden has won the 2020 Presidential election. For the most powerful members of the Democratic Party will want to define a "centrist" agenda for the United States for the next four years, and some of the most powerful members of both parties will try to legitimize the policies of the recently defeated Donald Trump as the new "center" around which that "centrist" agenda must be built. However, under that "center", the following injustices will remain:
I would not count on the goodness of the most powerful people in the United States to reverse these evils. Rather, that reversal will come only when the people most affected by these evils create a strong, effective resistance that imposes serious costs on the evildoers.
On, then, to today's discussion. Chapter 4 acknowledges the sense of powerlessness that even
activized people feel when they begin to study whether they can actually challenge structures of oppression and the power-holders who control those structures. As Gene Sharp says, "Dictatorships often appear invulnerable. [The structures of power] are controlled by a powerful few...In comparison, democratic opposition forces often appear extremely weak, ineffective, and powerless. That perception of invulnerability against powerlessness makes effective opposition unlikely."
But Sharp goes on to say, "That is not the whole story, however." And he begins to make his case that even dictatorships have weaknesses that make them vulnerable to skillful application of pressure by resisters. The key to that skillful application consists of correctly identifying those weaknesses. As Sharp says, "[Dictatorships], too, can be conquered, but most quickly and with least cost if their weaknesses can be identified and the attack concentrated on them."
WEAKNESSES OF DICTATORSHIPS
In Chapter 4 of
From D to D, there is a list of potential weaknesses common to all dictatorships. Note that I used the word "potential" as an adjective to describe these weaknesses, for not every dictatorship will have these weaknesses to the same degree. As an example of a regime in which some of these weaknesses had a greater effect, we can look at the failure of the regime of Donald Trump. In his case, his failures in 2020 were caused in large part by Weakness #1 ("The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups, and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn") and Weakness #7 ("If a strong ideology is present that influences one's view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual conditions and needs"). Weakness #1 contributed to his inability to turn public outrage over police murders of unarmed African-Americans into a polling boost by portraying himself as a "law and order" president. The suburbs to which he was appealing had disappeared between the time of Richard Nixon and the present, so that Trump's "
Omar Wasow re-election strategy" failed. This failure was amplified by Weakness #7, which rendered Trump incapable of responding in a coherent and effective manner to the COVID-19 pandemic. Weakness #7 also rendered Trump incapable of realizing that most Americans cared far more about the threat of the pandemic than they cared about Trump's "law-and-order" talk.
Trump turned out to be a relatively easy autocrat to depose - at least, if the results of the 2020 election are respected and the rule of law is followed in this country. (Biden's lead over Trump has grown to
over 7 million votes, by the way.) This was due to the fact that Trump was so blatant an oppressor, and that he made his oppressive intentions so clear throughout most of his presidency. In fact, if I had to organize a resistance movement against an autocrat or would-be autocrat, I don't think I could ask for a much easier opponent than Trump - simply because Trump was such a polarizing figure. Yet a troubling thing happened during the final few weeks of the 2020 campaign: Trump was able to
successfully reach out to certain members of groups of people
whom he had initially targeted for oppression. Thus he gained a surprising number of Latino votes even though the beginning of his term was marked by
threats of mass deportations (threats which he repeated in 2019 and 2020) and a push to build a border wall, and even though he forcibly separated Latino migrant children from their parents and threw them into cages. He was also able to pick up a number of African-American votes even after threatening to arrest "millions" of us and even after Republican policies designed to disenfranchise and disempower the African-American community. And he was able to pick up
votes from Arab-Americans and Muslims even after his attempt in 2017 to impose a Muslim travel ban. So perhaps I should say that Trump as he was before the final few months of the 2020 campaign would have been an easy figure to depose. Many have called Trump stupid, but I'd like to suggest that toward the end, he had begun to travel the path of
the dictator's learning curve. So let's talk about something that Gene Sharp perhaps did not consider in Chapter 4 of his book (although he
does address it somewhat in Chapter 7).
STRENGTHS OF DICTATORSHIPS
Dictatorships are weakest, ironically enough, when they are at their most hardline, their most oppressive, and their most polarizing. For it is then that it easiest for democratic resisters to make an ideological case against the dictator to their fellow citizens, because it is then that the dictatorships are likely to be the most brittle, because they have made themselves the most hateful to their subjects. The problem is that most successful authoritarians are not nearly so obvious anymore. As
Will Dobson says in
The Dictator's Learning Curve, "We like to believe that authoritarian regimes are dinosaurs - clumsy, stupid, lumbering behemoths, reminiscent of the Soviet Union in its final days or some insecure South American banana republic." However, the truth is that "today's dictators understand that in a globalized world the more brutal forms of intimidation...are best replaced with more subtle forms of coercion...Today's dictators pepper their speeches with references to liberty, justice, and the rule of law...[regularly invoking] democracy and claim to be the country's elected leaders. And modern authoritarians understand the importance of appearances." (See
this, for instance.) Skillful autocrats have the following strengths:
- They are able to skillfully deploy soft power to keep their people compliant. Sometimes this comes through making an implicit or explicit bargain with certain sectors of the population. Sometimes the bargain is made between the dictator and the entire population. Often the bargain can be stated thus: "You let me bring a certain measure of material prosperity to you, and in exchange, you let me be the boss. Don't question how I get things done - or else!"
- They are able to skillfully centralize power in ways that don't raise eyebrows. What Trump tried to do clumsily, autocrats like Putin have done skillfully - and these autocrats have justified their centralization by pointing to the same centralizing tendencies at work in so-called democracies which have allowed radical concentrations of wealth in the hands of a rich few. (However, that centralization of power eventually becomes a weakness of the autocratic regime.)
- They are able to skillfully divide in order to rule. Often, they are able to do so by means of a well-developed libertarian ideology of selfishness which disconnects people from each other and causes them to deny their mutual duty to one another in order to try to get rich.
- They are able to skillfully take advantage of the sins and weaknesses of their political opponents in order to divide them. Thus Trump has managed to take advantage of the conservative social values of many members of the groups of people he has sought to marginalize, in order to dissuade these people from supporting his opponents. He succeeded because many leaders of the so-called American "Left" no longer speak in any meaningful way for working-class people of color - especially when those people of color hold conservative religious or cultural values (like I do). Rather, the Democratic Party has begun to take communities of color for granted, assuming that we will always be content to be the foot soldiers of an agenda that does not reflect our concerns or our struggle. A case in point is the way in which the largely White leaders of the Left have defined the present Civil Rights struggle as a struggle for "diversity"*. But they have defined "diversity" in a way which elevates so-called sexual "diversity" to the most prominent place in the "diversity" agenda, even while African-American kids continue to be deprived of a quality education and get locked up by punitive and harsh public schools, while African-American families continue to suffer appalling disparities in wealth, and while African-Americans who get sick continue to be killed by a hostile medical system. To the leaders of the gay rights movement, I have a straight-up request: get off my back. Get off the backs of my people. We are not better together. Stop trying to hijack the struggle of communities of color in order to form a so-called "rainbow coalition" whose actual agenda has nothing to do with the priorities of communities of color. Your efforts hinder us from liberating ourselves. You know this. And for those "corporate Democrats" who assume that communities of color have no viable choice except to vote Democrat, I have the same request: get lost. Rahm Emmanuel has NO place in any position of government.
THE NEED FOR POWER ANALYSIS
Many of the strengths of autocrats which I have just described exist because of the often self-inflicted weaknesses of the democratic opposition. Those weaknesses can be moral as in the selfish embrace of libertarian ideology and the desire to get rich which separates brothers and sisters in struggle from each other. Other examples of moral weakness include a desire for the "American Dream" middle class lifestyle that is so overpowering that it silences people when they should speak truth to oppressive power. And there is the weakness that comes from making alliances with people with whom one should not be allied.
Therefore, the people most affected by oppression must form associations with each other in order to build their collective power for the purpose of liberation. The organizations which claim to be on behalf of the people most affected must be built and led by the people most affected. And in their initial building of their own internal power as well as in their preparation to take on the power of their oppressors, they will need to engage in an analysis of the relative power of each side, the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side. This analysis, called power analysis by community organizers, is a key prerequisite for building an effective strategy of struggle. For even though oppressors have gotten smarter and are therefore not as easy to remove, it is still possible to remove them. Gene Sharp's closing words of Chapter 4 are still true: "Types of struggle that target the dictatorship's identifiable weaknesses have greater chance of success than those that seek to fight the dictatorship where it is clearly strongest." Therefore, power analysis will be the subject of my next post in this series, God willing.
*Note: Over the last several years, "diversity" has been subject to ever-greater hijackings, expanding to corporate and government-backed "affinity groups" for the "neurodiverse" and
author Susan Cain advocating for a place for "introverts" at the "diversity" table. And in Oregon, people who would normally be regarded as white
have successfully gotten themselves defined as "people of color" by a government agency for the sake of receiving benefits! I am not saying that such groups should be persecuted, but rather, that including such groups in discussions about "diversity" leaves unanswered the injuries of
those most affected by historical oppression in the United States.
Another note: one characteristic of "soft" authoritarian states is the presence of an opposition party that does not actually represent the grievances of the people most affected by the oppression of the authoritarian government. This has been true not only in the United States, but in countries such as the United Kingdom. For more on this, click
here. This is why effective nonviolent civil resistance works most often
outside of established political channels and processes.
