Why Must Read Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know®?

According to the author, the goal of this book is to “serve those seeking broader understanding about pacific alternatives to violence,” in order to make them “…feel more equipped, prepared, and empowered to make a difference in the global fight for justice.” I believe Chenoweth has delivered on this objective; the book gets the highest rating. This handbook is a systematic organization of responses to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about civil resistance. The format embodies the useful practice of providing succinct information on web pages about specifics that come up frequently. The book is organized into five sections: “The Basics” (let’s define and clarify what is meant by civil resistance), “How Civil Resistance Works” (when is civil resistance successful –or how it fails), chapters 3 and 4 address many of the issues that arise regarding violence within the movement itself and against the movement, and the final chapter is an outlook for civil resistance. In a systematic survey of violent and nonviolent campaigns in the twentieth century, one finds that nonviolence succeeded 45% of the time, compared to violent campaigns that succeeded only 22% of the time. These data negate the common myth that violence is more effective and that it is the only path in certain environments to achieve change. The nonviolent effort is nevertheless daunting, succeeding less than half the time. Chenoweth emphasizes that nonviolent tactics are varied and must be tailored to local circumstances. Nevertheless, there are a number of elements that contribute to the success of a campaign: enjoying a broad and diverse base of support, the use of a variety of methods of resistance, the ability to develop “staying power, which means cultivating resilience, maintaining discipline, and sustaining mass involvement,” and spending significant effort –up to 20 times the time of the action itself-- in preparation, coordination and planning. In conclusion, she writes that “…the single most important influence on a civil resistance campaign’s success is the scale and range of popular participation.” This had led to the “rule-of-thumb” that involvement of more than 3.5% of the population demonstrates overwhelming support for the campaign and tends to lead to a successful outcome. There are a myriad points of discussion that arise around the topic of violence, and two chapters are devoted to fringe violence by a mostly nonviolent campaign and to violence against the campaign by the oppressor. Any violence distracts from the primary message of the campaign and provides cover for violent actions of the oppressor. In the survey of campaigns mentioned earlier, 2/3 of the nonviolent campaigns succeeded without fringe violence, while 1/3 included some amount of fringe or parallel violent movements. Adding violent actors to the movement tends to reduce broad support for necessary success, as well as decreases the probability of (security) defections from the oppressor that often play a significant role in the final outcome. Fringe violence by the campaign usually increases the violence by the oppressor, as it provides an easy excuse for the regime to provide the “required security.” Finally, Chenoweth addresses the myth that violence is the only method that can be used against dictators such as Hitler. She describes several instances of effective nonviolent resistance campaigns precisely against the Nazis. For instance, in 1942 the puppet government of Vidkun Quisling was setup in Norway. Quisling gave up on his attempt to include the Nazi ideology into school curricula after a ten-month long resistance by the teacher’s union with the support of school parents. The future of nonviolent campaigns depends on the agility of resisters to find effective actions to pull support away from the oppressor. These are not easy tasks but, based on experience, they are the most promising options for effecting real change. Ultimately, the biggest “…challenge in overturning an oppressive system … is imagining realistic and constructive alternatives.”