Today we are considering Chapter 5 of From D to D, titled, "Exercising Power" - an appropriate topic for our consideration, given the fact that our opponents do not care at all whether their cause is morally right. Their only concern is the extent to which they can exercise raw power over the rest of us. What kind of power can righteously and effectively resist the power of our opponents? According to Gene Sharp, the answer is the power embodied in strategic nonviolent resistance, which he calls "political defiance" in From D to D. Chapters 3 and 4 of Sharp's book deal with some of the necessary groundwork that must be laid in order to build effective nonviolent power. Chapter 5 begins to describe what that power looks like in action. To quote Sharp, effective strategic nonviolent resistance "has the following characteristics:
- It does not accept that the outcome will be decided by the means of fighting chosen by the dictatorship.
- It is difficult for the regime to combat.
- It can uniquely aggravate weaknesses of the dictatorship and can sever its sources of power.
- It can in action be widely dispersed but can also be concentrated on a specific objective.
- It leads to errors of judgment and action by the dictators.
- It can effectively utilize the population as a whole and the society's groups and institutions in the struggle to end the brutal domination of the few.
- It helps to spread the distribution of effective power in the society, making the establishment and maintenance of a democratic society more possible."
Note, however, that these characteristics do not automatically arise whenever a group of unarmed people come together to resist oppression. In order for these characteristics to characterize a particular nonviolent struggle, there must be a set of corresponding characteristics of the nonviolent struggle group, as noted below:
- The struggle group uses a variety of tactics to wage the struggle, instead of fixating on only one or two methods. This is one key ingredient which makes a successful struggle hard for the ruling oppressive regime to combat. Note that Gene Sharp identified 198 methods of nonviolent action which can be used and which have been used historically in nonviolent struggle. And Sharp himself admitted that there were many other effective methods of nonviolent action which he had not included in his list.
- The tactics of nonviolent struggle are chosen according to a wise grand strategy of liberation, a strategy with strategic goals.
- The struggle group maintains high ethical and moral standards in its conduct, standards which enable it to present a stark contrast between itself and its the oppressors who are its opponent. Among these high moral standards are the commitment to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," because "no lie is of the truth." This leads to the commitment to live in truth, as Vaclav Havel pointed out in his writings. This choice to behave according to high moral standards also puts the oppressor into a dilemma whenever he or his agents try to shut down the struggle group.
- As part of maintaining high ethical and moral standards, the struggle group maintains nonviolent discipline even when facing a violent opponent. In other words, the struggle group refuses to take up arms, to engage in violence against human beings (including retaliatory violence), or to destroy property.
- As part of the display of high ethical and moral standards, the struggle group operates very much in the open. Secrecy and conspiracies are rejected. Instead, the group openly declares its aims and methods. This shows both the opponent and the general population that the struggle group has nothing to hide, because it is not engaged in anything that is immoral.
A struggle group which structures itself according to these principles can wield great power. That power can be aimed at the oppressors themselves as is the case when nonviolent resisters try to convert members of the oppressor group through the witness of their lives and the espousal of their right principles. However, it must be noted that many oppressors cannot be converted. Consider people such as Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, for instance. These men cannot bring themselves to acknowledge anyone else's will or anyone else's rights, since to do so would be an intolerable affront to the identity which these men have chosen for themselves. Yet this unrepentance and un-convertibility are not an obstacle to skillful nonviolent resistance, because such resistance is able to change an oppressive society by fundamentally altering the balance of power in the society in such a way the the oppressor's power is disintegrated. Slobodan Milosevic and Ferdinand Marcos found this out the hard way.
Because the skillful exercise of nonviolent power can accomplish so much, it is only natural that dictators, autocrats, and leaders of other oppressive regimes would have taken a great interest in this means of struggle. Their interest quite naturally arises from a desire to find ways to make strategic nonviolent resistance ineffective. Their strategy of neutralization has consisted of things such as these:
- To try to make the practitioners of nonviolent struggle resemble the oppressor as much as possible by adopting the oppressor's means of fighting to the greatest extent possible. This shifts the struggle onto a ground in which the means of fighting are chosen by the dictator, and thus the struggle is easy for the oppressor's regime to combat.
- To redefine the concept of strategic nonviolent resistance in such a way that the moral and ethical advantages of would-be resisters are erased.
- To reduce the popular conception of nonviolent resistance into a small set of activities that can be easily controlled, outlawed or hijacked - for instance, by defining resistance solely as mass protest rallies and marches. Note that Russian lawmakers have been busy passing a number of extremely restrictive laws against mass protest. Perhaps Putin's regime is feeling a bit insecure, no? And yet mass protest can be fairly easily neutralized or hijacked, as was demonstrated during some of the many Black Lives Matter protests this past summer.
The strategies by which the powerful seek to neutralize strategic nonviolent resistance deserve some consideration. We will consider those strategies in the next post in this series, God willing.
When you're talking about dictatorships and the like you're talking about pathological individuals (psychopathological). The book 'Political Ponerology', written in 1984, describes one biological sequence by which these individuals rise to power. I simplify, but it begins with schizoids (flattened emotions, efficient intellects) coming up with a convenient self-serving doctrine, which is then perverted by the slightly brain tissue-damaged (egotistical, virtually undetectable) and then the paranoid (intolerant, egotistical). A pathologically egotistical 'spellbinder' (e.g. Trump) then comes to power. All these individuals are then pushed aside under pressure from genetically pathological individuals, with psychopathic individuals having an increasing influence.
ReplyDeleteDr. Peter Turchin has a blog that discusses 'secular cycles' - he predicted 2020 as one such peak. Lobaczewski, author of 'Political Ponerology', has described the cycle that brings pathological people to power as the 'hysteroidal' cycle, a cycle of increasing hysteria, polarisation and paralysis. He says that the cycle is caused by the privileged elite blocking out repressed truths about their greed and amorality, with the resulting hysteria spreading through society. Turchin has a slightly different take - he uses terms such as popular immiseration and intra-elite competition. Same root cause, however - the privileged taking way more than their fair share.
Hello Robert,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your readership. I had not heard of Turchin or Lobaczewski before. The problem of evil - especially societal evil - will be a darkly fascinating field of study as long as this age lasts, and will require study from many differing angles, including the Biblical. By the way, what do you believe your sources would say of Putin?