Logo of OTPOR! Serbian nonviolent resistance movement
retrieved from Wikimedia Commons on 12 July 2020
Ever since Donald Trump's capture of the White House in 2016, I have been fixated on the question of how oppressed people (or people targeted for oppression) can shatter the power of their oppressors without resorting to violence. My initial research led me to the writings of
Erica Chenoweth,
Maria Stephan, and
Gene Sharp. Later, my reading expanded to include the work of
Srdja Popovic. From these thinkers and activists I learned to see strategic nonviolent resistance as system of means by which the powerless and the oppressed
shift the balance of power between themselves and their oppressors without the use of physical violence or property destruction, as I wrote about in an earlier
post.
This shift in the balance of power occurs when skillful nonviolent resisters are able to weaken or destroy the pillars of support of an oppressive government by shifting the loyalty of the people who comprise those pillars of support. For those readers who may not be familiar with strategic nonviolent resistance, "
pillars of support" are those organizations which provide social power and legitimacy to a regime and its leaders. These include the police, the military, banks and other financial institutions, and the media, as well as others. Skillful strategic nonviolent resisters are able to weaken the allegiance of the members of these organizations to the regime by two means: first, by pointing out the corruption, evil, destructiveness, and specially, the
unsustainability of the current regime, and second, by presenting a righteous alternative to the regime. By employing both of these means, the nonviolent resisters weaken and eventually destroy the legitimacy of the regime. Once the regime loses legitimacy, it can no longer command obedience - therefore it can no longer survive.
In reading the history of successful nonviolent resistance campaigns, I have recently been struck by the role which elections played in the resistance struggles. Elections can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, skillful dictators and autocrats use them as a tool to divide the opposition so that the dictators can retain the appearance of a mandate to power. This was the strategy of former Philippine President
Ferdinand Marcos, as documented by Chenoweth and Stephan in the chapter of
Why Civil Resistance Works titled, "The Philippine People Power Movement, 1983-1986." This was also the strategy used by former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, who retained his power for several years by dividing and co-opting his opposition as documented
here and
here.
But there are times when elections as a weapon are seized from the hands of autocrats and dictators by an opposition who skillfully uses the elections to remove the legitimacy of the dictatorial regimes. They do so not only by publicizing the evils of the current regime and the possibility of a righteous alternative, but also by the following additional means:
- Massive "get out the vote" drives, especially among disaffected and marginalized populations,
- The development of a robust network of volunteers into an effective, independent means of monitoring election results,
- And the development of a means of nonviolently causing painful sanctions against the regime in the event that it tries to cheat, rig the election, or refuse to accept the results.
The development of an independent election monitoring network was the means used by both OTPOR! and CeSID in Yugoslavia to verify that Milosevic had in fact lost the 2000 election, as documented
here and
here. The
bulldozer strike and subsequent mass march on Parliament provided the painful sanctions that forced Milosevic to resign. In a similar way, the Philippine opposition
skillfully used the 1986 election to de-legitimize Ferdinand Marcos, employing a network of half a million volunteer election monitors to expose the cheating of the Marcos regime, and employing a massive general strike and huge mass protests to provide the pressure that forced Marcos out of office.
Now in 2020, those who treasure the continued supremacy of a favored few are hanging their hopes on the slim possibility that Donald J. Trump will pull off some sort of Election Day miracle that will enable him to "win" the election (meaning the Electoral College) even if he loses the American popular vote by several million. In order to get the American people to passively swallow the results of such an "election," the election must be made as close as possible. Thanks be to God that right now, it doesn't appear that the election will be close at all, and that it appears that not only Donald Trump, but a lot of Republicans are about to be ejected from office as if by the violent projectile emesis of the American body politic. Yet those who want another four years of Trump continue to fight on. And some of their tactics are sneaky. Those of us who lived through 2016 can spot these tactics.
One particular tactic is to try to say that there's really not much difference between Biden and Trump, or to characterize the choice between the two men as a choice between the "lesser of two evils." The users of this tactic seek to increase its effectiveness by using supposed voices from the Left to make such assertions. These supposed members of the Left claim to oppose Trump and winner-take-all capitalism, yet they also claim that voting for Biden is an act of ideological impurity and that we who stand to suffer the most from another four years of Trump should not lower ourselves to vote for someone like Biden. Among such voices is
Omar Haque, who lumps both supporters of Trump and supporters of Biden into the same category, which he calls "The American Idiot." Omar is not the only idiot trying to pull such a stunt. There is also the website
In These Times (published by the Democratic Socialists of America), who last month wrote an article titled, "Want To Defeat Trump Without Campaigning for Biden? Here's How." Note that if you read their article, you may conclude that it should have been titled, "Want to Waste Your Time In Symbolic Opposition To Trump While Handing Him A Second Term? Here's How." (Note also that
In These Times has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to downplay the evidence of Russian interference in the American electoral process - even though the entire American intelligence community is united in their assertion that Russian interference is real and did take place in 2016.)
This reminds me of
blogger Olga Doroshenko's excellent description of the Russians who claimed to be opposed to Putin and to his aggression against Ukraine, yet who criticized the attempts of the Ukrainians to liberate themselves from Russian aggression because those attempts did not meet the Russian standard of "perfection". As she pointed out, when you are doing all you can to liberate yourself, yet someone criticizes your efforts on the grounds that they are not "perfect", it is a sign that the critic really wants you dead.
Let's take a lesson from the Serbians who successfully used elections to oust Milosevic. They rallied a formerly fractured opposition behind a candidate who stood the best chance of delivering them from both Milosevic and from the ongoing destruction of the nation under Milosevic. Was that candidate "perfect" No! But was he aimed in a radically different direction than the continued slide into self-destruction under Milosevic? Yes!
Biden is not perfect. (What mortal human being is?!) Yet he is aimed in a radically different direction from Trump. As was said of Milosevic, it can be said of Trump that
his language smells like death. I want life to win this year. Therefore, I am voting for Biden. And I am wondering if we have the political will to
organize ourselves effectively in the next three months in order to put teeth into an electoral loss for Trump. Are we willing to do what the Serbs and the Filipinos did?
