Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for toppling dictators

[Amir]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/

[Len Cnut]

Tell that to the continent of Africa. It's an admirable way of doing things but I'm afraid I lack the moral fortitutude.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Len B'stard

[Amir]

Tell that to the continent of Africa. It's an admirable way of doing things but I'm afraid I lack the moral fortitutude.

Read the article and watch the video. It's very interesting, challenging a lot of my preconceptins.

[Len Cnut]

I can't, I'm at work but I'll have a butchers when i get home...whats it saying? Like, condensed

[Amir]

I can't, I'm at work but I'll have a butchers when i get home...whats it saying? Like, condensed

Basically, because of the physical requirements of armed struggle, less people are likely to participate. For a revolutionary movement to be successful, it needs 3.5%+ of the population to succeed. You're more likely to get more people on board if they're not expected to fight, etc. With a larger group of people protesting in nonviolent struggle compared to armed struggle, state police forces are less likely to fire upon them (people they know will be in the crowd).

Also, when violent struggles are successful, the winning party often enjoys a short-lived rule over the people, as they have to keep on using force to establish legitimacy as that is how they gained power. With a group that has attained power through nonviolent means, they are seen as having greater legitimacy.

[Len Cnut]

I don't agree with that, I'm more on the Colnel Kurtz side of this argument 'if i had a regiment of 10 such men'

[netcat]

in my country peaceful protests lasted for months and the dictator didn't give a rats ass. the next day the protests turned violent he ran away in Russia.

[Amir]

in my country peaceful protests lasted for months and the dictator didn't give a rats ass. the next day the protests turned violent he ran away in Russia.

It's still a revolutionary period in Ukraine, though, nothing is settled for a significant period of time. I think it's still too soon either way to say if the protests have been successful or not.

[Heisenberg]

If that's what residents want I am all for it. But in 99% cases foreign governments are involved and in all these cases only becomes worse.

[Amir]

If that's what residents want I am all for it. But in 99% cases foreign governments are involved and in all these cases only becomes worse.

That's not contrary to her point, and in her book she does point out that where there is foreign intervention then those new regimes are almost certainly doomed to failure.

(ties back to the point about perceived legitimacy)

[netcat]

in my country peaceful protests lasted for months and the dictator didn't give a rats ass. the next day the protests turned violent he ran away in Russia.

It's still a revolutionary period in Ukraine, though, nothing is settled for a significant period of time. I think it's still too soon either way to say if the protests have been successful or not.

that's right. but the title of the thread says peaceful protest is more effective for toppling dictators. in this particular case it was not

[Amir]

in my country peaceful protests lasted for months and the dictator didn't give a rats ass. the next day the protests turned violent he ran away in Russia.

It's still a revolutionary period in Ukraine, though, nothing is settled for a significant period of time. I think it's still too soon either way to say if the protests have been successful or not.

that's right. but the title of the thread says peaceful protest is more effective for toppling dictators. in this particular case it was not

If a pro-Russian dictator does come back to power, though, then that violent protest was not really successful. It's also dependent on certain conditions (3.5% minimum participation). I don't know enough about the Ukraine protests or most of this person's research to say if the two are contradictory. Edited December 30, 2014 by Amir

[netcat]

by pro-Russian dictator you mean our ex-president? he won't be back that's for sure. on the other hand i don't exclude the situation there will be further protests and current government will be toppled as well

im not saying she's wrong. i mean the success of a peaceful protest depends on many factors. for example, how many people participate. how far the dictator is willing to go to stay in power. will the military follow his orders and shoot the protesters. what part of the national elites supports him or wants to get rid of him, etc

[Amir]

By pro-Russian dictator I mean another of Putin's cronies. That's why I don't think an assassination of Kim Jong-Un would topple the North Korean regime, it would just leave a power vacuum that would most likely be filled by one of the de facto ruling generals anyway.

Yeah, there are a lot of factors, I'd be interested to read her book to see what all of them are. The 3.5% doesn't seem like an exclusive group, though, her argument is that by virtue of that number alone they will achieve success.

My main concern would be how to achieve that number for an organised protest in the first place as most regimes monitor all communications.

[DieselDaisy]

Do the figures include decolonisation?

"I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900,"

The statistics are going to inherently be centered - skewered even - by decolonisation, particularly British decolonisation, and all the new countries which appeared in the 50s and 60s.

[maynard]

I wish Brazil would go back to protesting again. Too bad people are busy partying.

[netcat]

My main concern would be how to achieve that number for an organised protest in the first place as most regimes monitor all communications.

yes having opposition/independent press and uncensored internet is essential to the process. we call our little "nazi coup" a Facebook revolution

[Georgy Zhukov]

Dictators lose face as soon as their own people stop fearing them.

[Strange Broue]

She looks like a dude

but maybe she is right

(i don't think so)

in my country peaceful protests lasted for months and the dictator didn't give a rats ass. the next day the protests turned violent he ran away in Russia.

It's still a revolutionary period in Ukraine, though, nothing is settled for a significant period of time. I think it's still too soon either way to say if the protests have been successful or not.

they just lose a good chunk of their territories
wow what a win...

Putin wins that, not the people of Ukraine

Not to mention in the future they just change dictators

Edited December 30, 2014 by Motivation

[Roush]

It took me about a minute to figure out the speaker's gender.

[magisme]

No.

[netcat]

they just lose a good chunk of their territories

wow what a win...

Putin wins that, not the people of Ukraine

Not to mention in the future they just change dictators

why is that consistent pattern i see here every time, the less knowledge someone has on the subject, the more he feel obligated to voice his competent opinion, preferably in a peremptory tone

meanwhile in Moskow

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30635874

their peaceful protest lasted for about 5 minutes, and (allegedly) here is why

Edited December 31, 2014 by netcat

[Heisenberg]

“Details to follow in the documentary, but it seems clear that the so-called ‘shooters’ who killed 14 police men, wounded some 85, and killed 45 protesting civilians, were outside third party agitators,” he said. “Many witnesses, including Yanukovych and police officials, believe these foreign elements were introduced by pro-Western factions – with CIA fingerprints on it.”

The filmmaker added that the events in Kiev, which led to collapse of the Ukrainian government and imposition of a new one hostile towards Russia, were similar to those in other countries, which he called “America’s soft power technique called ‘Regime Change 101’.”

Historically those were CIA-perpetrated coups against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 – both leaders with policies undesired by Washington or its allies.

More recently there was the 2002 coup in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez was briefly deposed “after pro and anti-Chavez demonstrators were fired upon by mysterious shooters in office buildings” and the anti-government protests against Chavez’s successor Nicolas Maduro, which “was almost toppled by violence aimed at anti-Maduro protestors,” as Stone put it.

“A dirty story through and through, but in the tragic aftermath of this coup, the West has maintained the dominant narrative of ‘Russia in Crimea’ whereas the true narrative is ‘USA in Ukraine.’ The truth is not being aired in the West,” Stone wrote. “It’s a surreal perversion of history that’s going on once again, as in Bush pre-Iraq ‘WMD’ campaign. But I believe the truth will finally come out in the West, I hope, in time to stop further insanity.”

Oliver Stone

[netcat]

the most idiotic thing about it is that he went to Moskow to do a film about Ukraine

it didn't occur to him that he can go to Kiev and ask people who participated in those events. of course CIA did it. nevermind there are photo and video footage and some people are identified as members of the riot police unit.

the thing is he doesnt give a shit about Ukraine or the truth or whatsoever. he only does this to degrade the US government.