This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D.) Recent posts in this series have dealt with the important subject of the strategy of nonviolent struggle. As I said in a recent post, strategic nonviolent resistance does not rely on the weapons and resources of the holders of oppressive power, and one big reason why is that those who are oppressed do not have access to the weapons and resources of the powerful. This is why strategy and strategic thinking is so important. If the strategy of a struggle group is solid, the struggle group can achieve great shifts in the balance of power between the powerful and those without power. If the strategy of a struggle group is weak, foolish or nonexistent, then that group will lose.
The success rate of nonviolent liberation struggles from 1900 to 2006 was over 50 percent, according to the book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan. Indeed, during this period, "campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as successful as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals," according to the book's website. Yet from 2010 onward the success rate of nonviolent struggle movements began to decline, as documented by articles such as "The Future of Nonviolent Resistance" by Erica Chenoweth, and "Nonviolent protest defined the decade. But is civil resistance losing its impact?" by Rupa Shenoy. I would like to suggest that the decline continues to this day, in which the success rate has dropped to less than 34 percent - a distressing decline of 16 to 18 percent. (Violent liberation struggles have shown an even worse decline in effectiveness, by the way. Don't take out a loan to buy an assault rifle!) The question then becomes, Why? What is causing the decline in the success rate of nonviolent resistance campaigns?
- Savvier responses by governments and other wealthy power-holders
- More entrenched oppressive power-holders who have proven to be resilient in the face of grassroots challenges to their power
- Increased use of brutal repression by these entrenched power-holders
- A change in the structure and capabilities of grassroots movements themselves (Emphasis added)