Nonviolence Resources

Back to table of content

By Howard Clark

The first calls for an international boycott of apartheid South Africa were made as early as 1958, and in Britain it was seen as a major strategy to be pursued when the Anti-Apartheid Movement was launched in 1959. At the intergovernmental level, South Africa's system of apartheid was widely condemned, especially after the 1960 Sharpeville massacre: in 1961 South Africa was thrown out of the Commonwealth (then called the British Commonwealth) and in 1962 the UN set up a Special Committee Against Apartheid, the next year agreeing a "voluntary" arms embargo. Yet it was not until the 1990s that apartheid finally ended.

There were three main areas for international sanctions against South Africa: economic sanctions, including trade and investment; the cultural boycott, and the sports boycott. The cultural and the sports boycott had primarily a psychological impact on South Africa. A sports mad country, South Africa's exclusion from the Olympics from 1964 onwards, and above all from international rugby and cricket from 1970 onwards, was brought about by a combination of pressure from other African states and demonstrations, including disrupting rugby matches.

The impact of economic sanctions remains a matter of debate, especially because the declarations of intergovernmental organisations such as the UN or the Commonwealth were repeatedly circumvented by two powerful states, Britain and the USA. However, there were waves of movements for "people's sanctions" - beginning with the revulsion at the Sharpeville massacre when even the British Labour Party leadership supported the moral gesture of refusing to buy South Africa fruit.

My own involvement began in a later wave. As a student in 1969, I was one of those who wanted to transfer the momentum gained from the sporting boycott actions into economic boycott. Our students union had already passed resolutions against the university buying apartheid fruit, and now we took up a campaign against Barclays Bank, the most popular bank for British students at that time and, as it happened, the bank used by my university. Our first success was in dissuading new students from opening their first ever bank accounts with Barclays, and persuading others to change. Our second was in holding a rent strike, refusing to pay rent for student rooms into an account with Barclays bank. Eventually the university authorities conceded, triggering the resignation of prominent members of the University's ruling council. Throughout the country, trade union branches, clubs, associations and churches debated changing their bank account. I remember getting into trouble with both the Quakers and the Peace Pledge Union for writing in Peace News in 1972 that they had no legitimacy in talking about nonviolence in South Africa unless they would take that small step of moving their bank account. Local authorities decided to do so too. In 1986 - some 16 years after the Boycott Barclays campaign began - the bank sold off its South African subsidiaries. Finally, too, the Cooperative supermarket chain decided not to stock South African products.

This type of boycott was very much influenced by the waves of concern about apartheid. For instance, after the Soweto killings of 1976 and the murder in custody of Steve Biko in 1977, and again in the 1980s with the emergence inside South Africa of the United Democratic Front and spokespeople such as Desmond Tutu. But all the while in the background were local anti-apartheid activists, putting resolutions to their trade union branches and their churches, recognising that both trade unions and churches were large corporate investors capable of exerting pressure on companies.

In Britain, the anti-apartheid boycott was a "long march", usually rather unspectacular - and having succeeded in persuading municipal councils to do something, we then had to witness Thatcher's government take away their power to make decisions on such political grounds. Nevertheless, we kept the issue of Britain's connections with apartheid in people's minds.

The story was different in other countries. In the 1970s we Brits looked enviously at the success of the Dutch boycott of coffee from Angola, a Portuguese colony in close alliance with South Africa. In the 1980s, workers at one of Ireland's main supermarket chains - Dunne's - were locked out in a four year dispute over selling apartheid goods, a conflict only resolved when the Irish government made South African products illegal.

The USA was a particularly important terrain of struggle. The "people's sanctions" movement had three main focuses: college and campus; banks; and municipal and state corporations. Their achievements were considerable. In 1985, after a 19-year campaign, the main bank involved with South Africa - Chase Manhattan - announced that it would not renew its loans to South African projects. By 1991, 28 states, 24 counties, 92 cities and the Virgin Islands had adopted legislation or policies imposing some form of sanctions on South Africa. By the end of 1987 more than 200 US companies had formally withdrawn from South Africa - many of them found other ways to carry on their business, for instance, General Motors licensed local production while IBM computers had a South African distributor. What was most important about these campaigns, however, was the public education carried out through them and the sense of solidarity engendered with the anti-apartheid movement inside South Africa.

Back to table of content

Prisoner support groups

The experience of MOC (Movimiento de Objeción de Conciencia) in helping people in prison is based on the civil disobedience campaign against obligatory military service - the campaign of insumisión 1971-2002 in which thousands of insumisos were jailed. During this period, various ways of supporting prisoners were suggested and tried. One of the most valued, without a doubt, were the 'support groups'.

Let's imagine a concrete case in order to illustrate how these groups function. Bixente Desobediente is an insumiso who will have to serve a sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day. He needs to convene a meeting with people close to him (family, friends) plus someone from the movement. The first meeting is attended by his girlfriend, his sister, three friends from the neighbourhood, a university pal, a cousin, a guy he met at an anti-militarism discussion group and a neighbour. This group reviews his decision to be an insumiso, discussing his motives and the consequences it could bring. As not all of them understand concepts like civil disobedience, nonviolence, direct action, and antimilitarism, the group looks at these too. In the following meetings, they establish goals, and after much brainstorming and discussion, they come up with the following objectives:

1) Emotional support:

Supporting Bixente emotionally is important during his time before his trial, in court itself and in prison. One suggestion is to hire a bus so that everybody who wants can go to court and witness the trial. Other suggestions are to visit Bixente in prison and encourage others to write letters. The idea is that he should not feel alone and has continual contact with supportive friends. This support should also extend to those close to him, such as his parents.

2) Logistic support:

Both before his trial and in prison, Bixente will need material support. Before his trial, he goes into hiding to avoid arrest and pre-trial detention, so people need to bring his things from his previous place of residence to his current location so that he is not caught. In prison, he needs books and paper to continue his studies. This is also work of the support group.

3) Political work:

The MOC, the movement to which Bixente belongs, is in charge of the political work. However, the support group can also collaborate with this work,joining in protest actions organised by MOC - especially those connected with his trial and imprisonment. At the same time, the groups can reach out politically in the places that Bixente is known - his neighborhood and university - to maximize the benefit provided by the disobedience of Bixente and other prisoners. Also the support group can put together an email list to keep people informed about his case and a webpage with information about Bixente's case, antimilitarism, war tax resistance to military spending, peace education, and links to related pages. Every now and then, Bixente will write a letter that can be circulated. The support group should coordinate with the MOC - for instance, one member attending MOC meetings - and check that their actions in line with the MOC's overall campaign.

The support groups are a great help, not only for the prisoner, but also for the MOC. They share the work and also serve as entry points for people to join the movement. Coordination between the political group and the support group, and with the prisoner is essential. Stable, frequent communication is important. The political criteria come from the political movement, not from the prison; however visits to the prison by members of both groups is important for the development and coordination of the political work.

Back to table of content

Evaluation allows us to learn from our experiences. Always everybody makes some kind of informal evaluation of an event - be it personal reflections, talking it over with friends, or a meeting of a group of core organisers ('leaders'). What we propose here, however, is that there be a structure for feeding back lessons from an event. Rather than leave evaluation to chance or confined to an elite, it should be set up as a planned and collective activity - valuing the input of people who have played different roles, who bring different kinds of experience and even levels of commitment. Preferably everyone who participated in an action or in organising an event should be encouraged to take part in evaluating it.

When evaluations are a regular part of our work, they give us the chance for honest feedback on the process and content of the work and help us to improve in the future. Bear in mind that there will be considerable differences of opinion and that it is not necessary for the group to come to agreement on the matter. It is also important to point out what was successful as well as what went wrong / Begin with positive evaluations wherever possible. The structure of the evaluation should be planned carefully.

Some of the most obvious points brought up in an evaluation might be quantitative - we handed out so many leaflets, we attracted so many people, we gained so much media coverage, we blocked a road for so long. If such information is important in evaluating the campaign development, make sure that somebody monitoring it - that you have a way of counting the number of protesters, that a media group collects information about coverage. However, sometimes the numbers game can distract attention from the main purpose, especially in the case of repeated protests. Maybe more protesters arrived but the action made less impact and first-time protesters felt useless, got bored or scared or in some other way were put off getting more involved. Maybe a military base entrance was blockaded for a longer time, but the action reached fewer people or was somehow less empowering. This means that criteria for evaluation need to be linked with the strategic purposes of a particular event.

Here we present you with a check list that can help you in the evaluation of an action but can also be used in other areas of your work:

Action Evaluation 1. Vision – Strategy - Objectives

   Was there an overall vision/strategy/objective?
   
   Was it relevant to the problem/conflict?

   Did the participants know who initiated the action?
   
   Were the participants aware of the vision/strategy/objectives?

2. Principles and Discipline

   Was there a clear discussion and agreement on discipline for the action?

   Was it followed during the action?

Were the planned tactics and those actually carried out consistent with the discipline?

Did any of the participants feel that they themselves or others failed to follow the agreed upon discipline?

3. Preparation and Training

   Was the preparation/training appropriate?
   
   Was the preparation/training adequate?
   
   Did it actually aid the participants in coping with the unexpected?

   Did it meet the needs of those involved?

   Did it meet the expectations of those involved?

   Was the necessary community feeling developed?

4. Tactics

   Were the planned tactics adequate?
   
   Were the tactics, as planned, actually carried out?

   Did they meet the needs and expectations of those involved?

   Were unexpected problems adequately dealt with?

   Was this done in a way consistent with the discipline/vision/objective?

5. Organisation

Did the structure/organisation of the action fit its objective/strategy/vision/discipline?

Was it organized in a democratic way?

6. Impact

A.On the participants

Was it relevant?

Did it invite/create participation?

Did the participants feel in control of the action?

Did it increase the initiative and confidence of the participants?

B.On those to whom it was addressed

Was it understood?

Were the objectives reached?

Did it close or open options for further action and communication?

Were there responses from individuals (opponents) that differed from the institutions that were a part of it?

How did these responses relate to the objectives of the action?

C.On others

Did they understand it?

Were they alienated by it?

Did it have any unexpected results?

Were people moved in our direction (neutralized, attracted, catalyzed)?

This evaluation form was developed at the International Seminar on Training for Nonviolent Action held in Cuernavaca, Mexico in July 1977.

Other resources for evaluation

back to table of content

Every action requires a range of different tasks - some very visible (i.e. the people blocking a street, the press spokesperson), other less visible, and more in the background. It is the role of the Coordinator/Organizer, or the facilitator at meetings, to identify what roles are needed and how they can be filled. Each of these tasks are equally important, as all together make an action possible. Some of these tasks, like outreach and organizing, may be shared by several people. And those people may take on other tasks, such as scouting the site. Consider rotating tasks where possible, such as meeting facilitation. It's important that the people responsible for various tasks during an action work together as a team, which takes preparation before the action. You can find more details on some of these tasks in this handbook, especially in Nonviolent Campaigns, Role of Media, Working in Groups, Legal Support, and Jail Support.

Before action Coordinator/Organizer Nonviolence Trainer Fundraisers Research Scouting the site or route Outreach and organizing Logistics and support Meeting facilitator Prop, sign and banner making, Painters, Graphic artists, etc. Media outreach: Send out media advisory and media release Media kits Writers During action People risking arrest (committing civil disobedience) Support People Police Liaison Peacekeepers/monitors Deployment Team/ Diversion Media spokesperson Communication team Demonstrators/Sign-holders/Chanters/Singers/ Hand out literature etc. Videographer Still photographer Medic/EMT/Medical Team Legal Observer(s) Jail Support Contact person After action Legal Support Lawyer Meeting facilitator for evaluation Documentarian/Historian/Archivist Fundraisers Public speakers Letter writers to decision-makers and newspaper editorial boards

Adapted from www.rantcollective.net

Back to table of content

Introduction

Legal systems are different in every country. However, for actions where it is likely that participants will be arrested, it is always useful to have a 'legal support team'. This advice on forming such a team in Britain is adapted from the first section of a much longer briefing by the Activist Legal Project at: http://www.activistslegalproject.org.uk

Legal support may be a background but it can be absolutely vital. You may be the last home after the action, often spending hours hanging around police stations waiting for activists to be released. You won't share the glamour or get photographed, but without legal support some actions aren't possible. Perhaps if you weren't there, half of those at the 'front-end' of the action wouldn't take part!

What are the Aims of Legal Support? To make sure everyone going on the action is prepared for arrest To liaise with police and solicitors to ensure that arrested activists have appropriate support whilst in custody To ensure that once released activists have the emotional and practical support they need Legal Support Group Roles

The number of people involved in the legal support group will depend upon the size of the action and the number of arrests expected. A number of essential roles have to be fulfilled:

Preparing a written legal briefing for the action, including information on arrest procedure, what happens at the police station, likely offences, likely outcomes, bail and first court hearing. Preparing and distributing 'bustcards' to people going on the action - these contain phone numbers in case of arrest Staffing a phone line (the legal support number), waiting for calls from detainees at police stations. Co-ordination - preparing and updating a definitive list of who has been arrested, including their contacts details, and whether they have been released Police station support - giving support at the police station(s) to arrestees, liaising with solicitors at the police station(s) and meeting detainees on their release from custody Logistics - organising vehicles, drivers, and possibly accommodation to collect and house people released from police custody Organise a defendants' meeting after the action

Unlike legal observers, who do risk arrest by joining activist on the ground, the Legal Support Group should at no stage jeopardise their position with regard to arrest. You are no use to anyone on the inside of a police cell!

For more information on setting up a legal support for a big mass action 'Setting up a legal team' on the US based website: http://www.midnightspecial.net

For Further legal information and workshops contact

Legal Activist Project

info (at) activistslegalproject.org.uk

http://www.activistslegalproject.org.uk

Back to table of content

Planning an action

There are times when you'll be preparing a one-off action, perhaps as your contribution to someone else's campaign, or as a stand alone event in itself. Other times your action will be part of your wider campaign strategy with each and every action being a step towards your overall campaign aims. Here we provide a check up list to keep in mind while planning an action:

Before the action

Framework What is the analysis of the situation? What structure will the group use? Who makes the decisions and how? What is the strategic goal (i.e., who are we trying to influence, and what do we want them to do)? What is the political objective (what is the action or event)? How does this event communicates its goals before, during and after the event? How does the group define its commitment to nonviolence (are there nonviolence guidelines or states principles)? What will the scenario be? (including place and time) Who will provide overall coordination of the event? When and how do you expect the action to end?

(see the Campaign section "Developing effective strategies" and "Components of a Campaign" for more ideas and exercises)

Outreach Will the group be trying to work with other groups or communities? If so, who will make the contacts? Will the group have a flyer, explaining to the public what it is doing? If so, who will prepare it? What publicity will you do? Will you try to reach other people to join you? If so, who will do it? What kind of media work will you do? Will you send out a press release ahead of time? Will there be spokespeople during the event, ready to talk to the press? Will there be a Media Kit with "talking points"? Will you need a Media Sub-committee?(check the media section). Participants preparation What opportunities do participants in the action have to prepare? Are their orientation sessions? Affinity group development? nonviolence training? skills training? legal briefing? Are the participants empowered to make decisions about the scenario? How is that done? Is the group process clear to all? Is it clear that there are many roles needed for an effective action, not just those doing the "direct action"? Logistical planning Are the logistics regarding the time and place well planned? Have all the materials been prepared and is there a distribution plan? During the action Is there a communication system between those in various roles roles such as police liaison, legal observers, media spokesperson, Medical team, people risking arrest, support people and demonstrators? Who is documenting the action with photographs and video? Is the decision-making process clear? After the action If people were arrested, is there legal and jail support? Is follow-up media work being done - spreading info on the action to mainstream and alternative media? Has the group doing an evaluation of the action? Does the group plan to document the action (creating a case study)? What are your next steps? Will this action lead to the development of a campaign? If part of a campaign, how does it change the situation?

Back to table of content

By Majken Sorensen

We usually use nonviolent action about serious problems. Thinking about an action in humorous terms may therefore seem to be a strange way to deal with the issue, and not your first choice. However, humour and seriousness may be much more closely related than at first they appear. Almost all good humour thrives on contradictions and absurdity, and nonviolent action often tries to point out the contradiction between the world as it is, and the world as we want it to be. Humour is powerful because it is turning the world as we know it upside down and escapes the logic and reasoning that is an inevitable part of the rest of our lives.

How to start?

If humour doesn’t come to you easily, don’t despair, it can be learned. Watch your opponent: If there is a contradiction between what he says, and what he does, might this be the basis for a good joke? The closer you stick to the truth about what your opponent is saying and doing, the better the humour will work. Almost all dictators will say that what they are doing is "for the good of the people”. That kind of statement might be contradicted by their actions.

Using humour wisely

Don’t overdo it – humour should be used with moderation and works best if it is complemented with a serious message. Choose the object of your humour carefully!

If you are making a political action, you want a political message, and you want to stick to the point. How people look, their way of speaking or sexual habits are not good subjects. Making jokes about such things may be fun within your own group, but are usually not the way to reach out to other people and take attention away from the political point you want to make. At the end of this section, you can read two examples of actions that stick to the politcal points and don’t get sidetracked.

Why use humour?

Using humour in your actions can be useful in a number of ways. First, it should be fun for those of you who participate in the action. Humour has a potential to prevent and counter activist burnout, although it is not a magic solution.

Using humour is also a way to increase the chance of getting attention from media, potential supporters and bystanders. Journalists who know that they will get good images and a lively story from your group are more likely to show up when you announce that something is going to happen.

If you are part of a small movement that wants to expand, humour will be a way of showing potential members that although you work on a serious issue, you are still capable of enjoying life.

The power of humour

Humour is a powerful way to relate to your opponent, as the 'absurdity' of your actions will change both the relationship and the logic of rational argumentation. Good humorous actions are difficult to respond to for both the police and the opponent himself. It can give you a perfect opportunity for creating a “dilemma action”, which means that no matter what your opponent does, he has lost and is likely to appear weaker in the eyes of both bystanders and the people on “his” side. But be prepared for harsh reactions if you humiliate anybody. When you make it difficult for your opponent to find an “appropriate” reaction (adequate from his point of view), frustration might cause a violent reaction.

Examples of humorous actions

Two examples can illustrate some of the points above. We don’t recommend that you copy them directly, as your context is likely to be very different. But they can show how powerful humour can be:

In Norway in 1983, a small group of total objectors organised in the group “Campaign against Conscription”, (KMV in Norwegian) were refusing both military and alternative service. They wanted to create public debate and change the law that gave them 16 months in prison. The state refused to call it “prison” and instead labelled it “serve their service in an institution under the administration of the prison authorities”. To avoid having political prisoners, there were officially no trials, no prisoners, and no punishment. The cases of the total objectors went through the courts only to identify the objector, and the result was always the same, 16 months in prison. Sometimes the prosecutor never showed up because the result was clear anyway, so KMV exploited this in one of their actions:

One of the activists dressed up as the prosecutor and overplayed his role and demanded that the total objector get even longer in prison because of his profession (he was a lawyer). During the procedure in the court, nobody noticed anything wrong in spite of the “prosecutor’s” exaggerations, and one week later KMV sent their secret video recording of the case to the media and the result was that most of the Norwegian public was laughing.

This example clearly illustrates the power of turning things upside down. A friend of the accused playing the prosecutor, and demanding a stronger punishment than what the law can give, is a parody of the court. In this action, KMV activists satirised the absurdity of having a court case when there is nothing to discuss, and succeeded in getting attention from both media and “ordinary people”. In addition to turning the roles upside down, the parody of the court also exposed the contradiction between what the Norwegian state said and what it did. If the politicians call Norway a democracy, and claim that it doesn’t have any political prisoners, why are people sent to prison for their beliefs? And how come that the imprisonment is not even called a prison sentence, but an administrative term for serving their alternative service? This is an absurd situation, and through dramatising it in a humorous frame, KMV could cut through all rational explanations and make people understand that this did not make sense.

However, this case can also serve to make the important point, that the activist using humour should be aware of the context it is used in. If you want to avoid long prison terms, imitating this kind of action cannot be recommended.

In the other example, we move from democratic Norway, to dictatorial Serbia in the year 2000 before the fall of Slobodan Milošević. To support agriculture, Milošević was placing boxes in shops and public places asking people to donate one dinar (Serbian currency) for sowing and planting crops. As a response, the youth movement Otpor arranged its own collection called “Dinar za Smenu”. Smenu in Serbian is a word with many meanings; it can mean change, resignation, dismissal, pension and purge. This action was repeated several times in different places in Serbia, and consisted of a big barrel with a photo of Milošević. People could donate one dinar, and would then get a stick they could use to hit the barrel. On one occasion, a sign suggested that if people did not have any money because of Milošević’s politics, they should bang the barrel twice. When the police removed the barrel, Otpor said in a press release that the police had arrested the barrel, and that the action was a huge success. They claimed they had collected enough money for Milošević’s retirement, and that the police would give the money to Milošević.

This is an example of a dilemma action, because Otpor is leaving both Milošević and the police with no space for reaction. If the police do not take away the barrel, they lose face, and when they do something, Otpor continues the joke by calling it arrest of a barrel and saying the police will give Milošević the money for his retirement. No matter what the regime does, it has lost.

You can find Majken's dissertation on humour and nonviolence at:

the website of the Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies, Coventry University

Back to table of content

By Roberta Bacic with thanks to Clem McCartney

Introduction

People protest for many reasons but often it is because we are confronted with a situation to which we must respond and take a stand. The reality we face - be that our own or that of others - pushes us to act/react/challenge/change what we are experiencing and seeing. We forget to take into serious consideration the possible consequences of any such choice. Positive consequences are often empowering. Negative consequences can be disempowering. We need to think about them in advance to be prepared for the next steps but also so we are not surprised by them and suffer even more stress.

Consequences of taking a stand

In taking a stand, we may be putting ourselves into situations that will push us to our limits and put ourselves at risk. If this happens, negative experiences will be almost inevitable and fear will most likely surface as a response. In situations of insecurity and anguish, those feelings will merge: fear of being arrested, fear of being denounced, fear of being tortured, fear of being caught in an illegal meeting, fear of being betrayed, fear of again not achieving our goal, etc. Fear of the unknown (what happens if I am arrested?) and also of the known, be that a specific threat by phone or being aware of what has happened to others. We need to know what can be done to avoid those consequences or cope with them when they arise.

Three main elements can help us to function: confidence and solidarity with our fellow protesters, good training and emotional preparation and debriefing. (resource list at end? More Description needed?) For more on go to http://wri-irg.org/nonviolence/nvse07-en.htm

Some of the consequences we need to be prepared for.

1. Dealing with fear consequences

When we think of traumatic consequences we immediately think of the physical consequences. Being manhandled, arrested or beaten and our human rights violated. This is a greater risk in some societies than others, and people protesting in very militaristic and authoritarian states are particularly courageous. But all of us will normally feel at least some anxiety and fear and at least be aware of the risk of physical pain or discomfort. These fears may immobilise us. But it is not good to ignore them. If we are not prepared our natural reactions in the situation may actually lead to greater hurt. For example we may have an urge to run, but if we start running we lose our discipline and those opposing us may be tempted to attack at that moment. Being prepared, rationally, emotionally and practically, is therefore important and training in fear control is very helpful. The physical risk is well understood but other risks are not less real and receive more attention here. See Consequences of fear Exercise.

You can also look at a specific example on http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/node/232.

2. The strength of coming out in public

We need to be aware that we are choosing to stand outside conventional opinion. It is not so difficult to share our feelings in private with those who share our views, although we may worry about being betrayed. Coming out in public is more difficult. We are taking a stand not only against the state but also against common social attitudes. The very reason that we need to protest is to challenge those conventions, but knowing that does not make it easy. We are exposing ourselves. We think of Women in Black in Israel who simply stood there as a silent witness to what they could not accept in their society. Now that form of witness has been used in Serbia, Colombia and elsewhere. Solidarity with our colleagues is very important in such situations, and to create space to air our feelings and deal with them. Even those who appear confident may have worries that they need to acknowledge and deal with. Use a Hassle line exercise to practice expressing our position.

3. Preparing ourselves to deal with distress

There are other risks and other consequences that are subtler but for that very reason can be more distressing. We may face disrespect and humiliation, be mocked and goaded by bystanders or the state forces. Again Women in Black come to mind, spat at and abused by a hostile public, yet remaining silent and not reacting. This can be emotionally distressing. Role playing the situation in advance at a training or meeting of the participants helps us to prepare ourselves emotionally and to understand more fully the motivations (and fear) of our opponents. Solidarity and confidence in our fellow protesters is again important and that is partly built up by such rehearsals. Less emotionally distressing, because it is less immediate, is bad publicity. The press, who may libel us with all kinds of inaccuracies, may challenge our good faith and motivations. Preparing ourselves for such humiliation makes it easier to cope with it when it comes.

4. Putting yourself in the position of the other

We may even seek out humiliation as part of the statement we are trying to make, as when protesters try to put themselves into the situation of people they are defending. Many groups have done street theatre playing the parts of prisoners and guards at Guantanamo Bay. Here unanticipated feelings rise to the surface, which participants sometimes find difficult to control. The “prisoners” may in fact begin to feel violated while the “guards” find themselves entering into the experience too enthusiastically or on the contrary feel a sense of revulsion. Either way the participants may feel defiled and polluted. To deal with such possibilities they need to be prepared for such reactions in themselves and be debriefed sensitively afterwards. Another example was the protests over factory farming when volunteers used their own bodies to model slabs of meat. The reaction may be to feel really enthusiastic and liberated by taking a stand or alternatively troubled at the situation they have put themselves into.

5. Dealing with disillusionment

Sometimes we have few problems before and during the protest but it is a real blow if we seem to have had no impact. The huge protests against the war in Iraq on the 15 February 2003 did not stop the war. Our worst fears were realised. Not surprisingly, many people were disillusioned and disempowered. Naturally they asked “Was it worth doing it?” They may not want to take part in any other actions on this or other issues, feeling it worthless. What can be done to address this disillusionment? We need opportunities to reflect together on what has happened and what we can learn from the experience. See Evaluation section. We need to adjust our expectations. Protests are important to show our strength, but they alone will not stop a war.

6. Dealing with success in our actions

As well as worrying that a situation may turn out worse than we anticipated, paradoxically we might also find it hard to cope with what might on the surface seem positive - for instance, if the security forces act more humanely than we anticipated or the authorities engage with us and seem willing to consider our demands. This can have an unsettling effect if we have steeled ourselves for confrontation. What happens to all the adrenaline which has been built up in our bodies? What do these developments do to our analysis? Are we wrong in our analysis of the situation? Should we trust the system more? Or are we being duped by sweet words? Our movement may achieve more solidarity when we are faced with harsh opposition and may fracture when that does not materialise. Therefore we need to be ready to know what responses might be most effective and test out through Role playing what is possible and when it happens we need to be able to collectively assess the situation and act appropriately.

7.When the levels of aggression rises up

Many of us have been shocked at the aggression which arises during a nonviolent protest and not only from those opposed to the protest. We may find a wave of aggression rising up in ourselves when we are manhandled by authorities and even if we do not react that feeling can make us very uncomfortable and doubtful. Or other protesters may start to riot and we have to be able to find an appropriate response. Do we join in, leave or hold our ground continuing the protest nonviolently as planned? There is little time to think in such situations, so such possibilities need to have been thought through in advance and we need to have our alternatives clear so that quiet decisions can be made. Use Decision making, Role playing and De-escalation exercises.

Different contexts

We might be protesting in the North in states and cultures, which claim to be liberal, democratic. We might be in an authoritarian regime. But we should not assume that protest is easier in liberal democracies. Some such states can be very harsh in their treatment of protest. There are other factors that determine what is the potential of protest and its limits. The society may be closed or open. In a closed society the risks are greater because dissidents can disappear and there is little possibility of any accountability. It may have a functioning judicial system, independent of the government, which can act as a check on human rights abuses. The culture of the society is also a significant factor as it may value conformity and respect for authority. Or the society may feel weak and vulnerable to the pressures of modernity or of the influence of other states and therefore any form of protest is seen as disloyal and destructive.

While protest is more difficult in some situations than others, all the issues I have discussed here may arise in any context, albeit with varying intensity.

Conclusions

If we prepare for the mixture of emotions and reactions which may result from our protest, build solidarity with our colleagues and analyse and debrief ourselves on the consequences of our actions, then we are better placed to continue the struggle for a better society, even though we may know that that will not be achieved in our lifetime, if at all.

However if we do not prepare well and deal well with the consequences, then we may end up not helping anyone, not even ourselves. We may get discouraged and decide to give up or take up other types of strategies that may be counterproductive, such as mainstream politics and the use of force. Or we may get into a pattern of just protesting for its own sake, without any strategic sense. As such, we may appear superficially to be still engaged in the struggle and others may admire our persistence, but we have lost a purpose for all the energy we expend and our ineffectiveness and purposefulness may discourage others to engage. If - as I believe - we have a duty to protest, then we also have a duty to prepare ourselves well: to identify the risks to our physical and emotional well being, and take steps to ensure that we can overcome these risks and continue the struggle in a positive and effective manner, keeping true to our ideals. Last, but not least, let’s keep trying, have some fun while we do it and by that give peace a chance. We are not the first ones in doing it, nor will be the last ones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NRriHlLUk

A series of events on nonviolence is running throughout January in Sevilla, state of Spain. The event this evening will launch the 'Manual para Campañas Noviolentas' – the Spanish edition of the Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns. On Saturday, attend the Workshop Design of Nonviolent Campaigns, led by former WRI staff member Andreas Speck. Register here.

Read more...

The second edition of the Handbook for Nonviolent for Campaigns was first released in English in 2014, at WRI's International Conference in Cape Town. The book has now been translated into Spanish via the support of a crowdfunding campaign, and is available from the WRI webshop here: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/24916

Two books for the price of one! 2nd October is 'International day of Nonviolence', so until the 9th October, if you buy a copy of the 2nd edition of the Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns, we'll include a copy of the first edition to pass on to a friend! Both editions are available in English and Spanish.

In 2009, War Resisters' International released the 'Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns'; a toolbox of ideas and resources to support activists to run more effective campaigns. The full first edition is available online here: www.wri-irg.org/pubs/NonviolenceHandbook. The original was translated into over ten languages, including Spanish, German, Tigrinya (spoken in Eritrea), Nepalese, Turkish, and Arabic, and has been used by activists all over the world.

On March 25th 2015, in Casa Museo de la Memoria Indomita, Mexico City, two peace activists closely connected to WRI (Igor Seke from Serbia/Mexico and Julian Ovalle from Colombia) will present the 2nd edition of WRI's Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns. They will also talk about the CO as a way to resist war in Colombia, and how the international solidarity with conscientious objectors works in that country. The host of this event is Comité Eureka! from Mexico, which works on cases of forced disappearances for over 40 years.

This event coincides with the crowdfunder campaign for the Spanish translation of the second edition of the Handbook; WRI is raising money to complete the translation - there are just nine days left to go! See https://goteo.org/project/campanas-noviolentas for more information.