Nonviolence Handbook

Back to table of content

Why are you interested in a Handbook on nonviolent campaigns? Probably because you want to make something happen, or perhaps because you want to stop something from happening. Perhaps you sense that nonviolence can offer an alternative to actions that generate hostility and ultimately prove sterile, at least from the point of view of making social change. Perhaps you just want to try something different or get some tips to improve the way your group is already organising actions and campaigns.

In this Handbook, our basic, working definition of nonviolence is based on a desire to end violence — be it physical violence or what's been called 'structural violence' (deprivation, social exclusion, and oppression)—without committing further violence. This is not a definitive description, as other, more eloquent, more philosophical, more time-specific (e.g., that meant a lot in a certain time and place), and personal, rather poetic, definitions exist.

Nonviolence can imply much more than this basic definition, including a desire to change power relations and social structures, an attitude of respect for all humanity or all life, or even a philosophy of life or theory of social action. We encourage you to explore these areas. Discovering the differences in emphasis and sharing insights into nonviolence can be a rich experience in the context of a group preparing to take nonviolent action together.

People have different reasons for adopting nonviolence. Some advocate it because they see it as an effective technique for bringing about desired social changes, others because they seek to practise nonviolence as a way of life. There is a spectrum here, with many somewhere in between. Such differences may surface during a campaign, but usually a statement of principles or guidelines specific to a particular campaign (see 'Principles of Nonviolent Action' and 'Nonviolent Guidelines') can accommodate people with attitudes across this spectrum.

Certain differences in understanding, however, can be a source of friction in a campaign and need to be brought into the open. For instance, some argue that the methods of nonviolence should be deployed in order to wage a conflict and win; others argue that a key nonviolent attitude is to seek a solution that will include those who today are adversaries. What is essential when a difference such as this occurs is not that campaigners debate basic attitudes, but that they reach agreements on the points that affect the campaign. This particular example (when some seek to 'win' and others seek an inclusive solution) would influence the demands and negotiating strategy the activists engaging in the campaign draw up.

The question of damage to property can be divisive. Some nonviolent activists seek to avoid damage to property while others believe that damaging property is a cost worth inflicting on an opponent. In Section Three, we discuss the value of campaign or action guidelines. Attitudes on a subject like property damage might need to be debated in drawing up such guidelines. Such discussion should not be delayed until an action is underway. For some people, nonviolent action means avoiding hostile behaviour towards adversaries, perhaps even 'seeking that of good in everyone', while other nonviolent activists might seek to 'shame' an adversary, or to brand them as 'war criminals' or 'torturers', 'racists', or 'corrupt'. The issue of shouting names or terms of abuse might well be covered in the guidelines for an action, but the underlying differences and the possible combinations of attitudes can be discussed in much greater depth by the kind of 'affinity groups' discussed in the section on preparing for nonviolent action (see 'Affinity Groups'). Such groups aim to be a 'safe space' for disclosing doubts, but also for mutual learning. Affinity group members can take a phrase commonly associated with nonviolent action—such as 'speaking truth to power'—and each explain what it means for her or him and what issues it raises, sharing insights and deepening each other's understanding of what they are trying to do together.

A common attitude of nonviolent activists is that we want our activities to be an expression of the future we are trying to create: this might be embodied in what Mohandas Gandhi called constructive programme (see “Constructive Programme'), but also in the idea of we/the movement 'being peace', that our behaviour reflects the world we want. When we use phrases such as 'speaking truth to power', 'affirming life', or 'respecting diversity', we are invoking fundamental values that themselves are a source of strength for us and a point of contact with those we want to reach.

Back to table of content

War Resisters' International (WRI) produced this Handbook, drawing on the experiences of groups in many countries and different generations of activists. At the heart of every nonviolent campaign are the resourcefulness and commitment of the activists involved and the quality of the message with which they reach out—a message that may raise questions about how things are, stir people out of resignation about what is happening or might happen, attract allies, or demand a say in decisions that affect their/our lives. One of the notions central to nonviolent campaigns is 'empowerment': a sense of how you can make things happen, especially if you join with others.

There are many dramatic images of nonviolent action. Indeed, the ability to dramatise an issue is one of the strengths of nonviolence; it tries to make people see and act on what often passes unnoticed. However, this drama doesn't just happen. It gestates—in groups or cells of activists, in discussions, in training sessions, in reflecting on previous experiences, in planning, in experimenting, in making contacts. That is why this Handbook is grounded in what groups have done and how they have done it. We are not attempting to present a definitive model, but to suggest methods that have worked in various contexts and that can be adapted by creative nonviolent activists in their own situations.

Thus, this printed Handbook is a selection of a wider range of material available from War Resisters' International or on the internet. It combines texts introducing certain themes, experiences, and group exercises. This introductory section outlines what we mean by nonviolence; the importance of nonviolence training; issues for your group; and a few brief examples of historical nonviolence. Section Two looks at one specific instance of oppression within our movements: gender. Section Three outlines tasks and tools for organising and facilitating trainings. Section Four describes nonviolent campaigns and actions, including constructive programmes and the role of the media. Section Five offers specific tips for effective organising at all stages. Section Six provides stories and strategies from around the world.

Throughout the Handbook we describe some of the advantages of nonviolence in action and give examples of how it works. If you are unfamiliar with terms in the Handbook, see the glossary (Section Nine).

Section Seven gives examples of exercises for working in nonviolence. These group exercises aim either to deepen a group's understanding of an issue and of each other or to help the group be more effective in carrying out nonviolent actions and campaigns. In general, the exercises need somebody to 'facilitate' them, that is to introduce them, explain what to do and why, and keep the process moving, encouraging timid people to speak up and extroverts to listen, especially in the 'debriefing' at the end.

We hope that readers will copy parts of this Handbook and translate them or hand out to their groups. If you do this, feel free to adapt what is written to suit your needs. Section Eight offers advice—and therefore encouragement!—for you to tailor what you find here or on the WRI Website to your own situation. Section Ten is some selected resources. If you find something in this Handbook particularly interesting, you can also go to the WRI Website (http://wri-irg.org/wiki/index.php/Nonviolence_Handbook) to find out more. You will find longer versions of some articles, additional articles and exercises, and plenty more resources. In WRI we try to share rather than provide resources, meaning that others would love to read what you have learnt in your experiences with nonviolent campaigns or training. So please contribute to the WRI Website. And if you do translate part of the Handbook, please send your translation to info@wri-irg.org so we can add it to the Website.

Back to table of content

Name: Cross spectrum Time: 30 minutes, or longer Goal or purpose of the exercise:

To help a group determine what is an effective nonviolent action; show the different perceptions on nonviolence; to test or develop specific proposal for effective nonviolent action that the group can agree on

How it's done/facilitator's notes

The facilitator makes a cross (+) on the floor with masking tape, long enough to make a grid that the group can stand on. Write “nonviolent” and “violent” on opposite ends of one line, “effective” and “not effective” on opposite ends of the other. (Instead of tape, you can simply put the words on paper at ends on four sides.) The facilitator presents a possible action scenario, asking people to stand in a place on the grid that represents how they feel about it (i.e. nonviolent but not effective). Ask some of the people to explain why they are standing where they are, explaining people can be “moved” by what is said. If the purpose of this exercise is to create an effective nonviolent action for a certain situation, the facilitator and participants should make scenario suggestions that move people towards the nonviolent and effective corner. The facilitator should make a list as people identify what is needed to make the action more effective and nonviolent. (i.e. Training of all the participants, good media work, etc.) If the purpose is to show the different perceptions on nonviolence, a wide variety of scenarios can be suggested by the facilitator and participants.

Trainers notes

The facilitator should ask questions to get the group thinking more deeply about what is effective and nonviolent. Depending on the purpose of the exercise, this exercise can be done in as short a time as 20 minutes if simply showing how people feel about actions, or extended until a satisfactory nonviolent action scenario is developed if that is the goal.

Back to table of content

Name: Tree and wind Time: 30 minutes Goal or purpose of the exercise

Trust games help to highlight situations of insecurity or fear, and of confidence in yourself and the group

How it's done/facilitator's notes

Form a tight circle of 6-7, with one person placed in the middle. The person in middle should be told to place their feet solidly on the ground, close their eyes and let themselves fall to one side (as if you were a tree being moved by the wind). The rest of the group is around him or her, with their hands in front of their bodies and they pass the person that is in the middle from one to the other, without any brusque movement and not letting the person in the middle fall. It's important that all in the circle are coordinated to make the tree move from one side to the other. After a minute, another person from the group goes to the middle. It's important that all the people can participate, so that they can share their experiences.

After the game:

Write on a big sheet of paper the feelings and experiences that everyone had during the game. 2) After that, relate these impressions to fear. Compare some real situations where fear appears or some consequences of it, with what the group has said.

After that summarize the consequences of fear

Back to table of content

Name: The Pillars of Power Time: Minimum 30 minutes Goal or purpose of the exercise

1. To identify the pillars holding up the power structures we want to overcome.

2. To analyse the pillars with the goal of developing strategies to weaken them.

3. To identify the vulnerability of power structures.

How it's done/facilitator's notes Describe the Pillars

1. Draw an upside down triangle, with pillars holding it up. Write the name of the problem in the triangle. It can be an institution or an injustice. (i.e. “war”).

2. Ask the group to identify the pillars that represent the institutions and factors that support the problem (i.e. the military, corporations, patriotic citizens, etc.) Be specific about elements of the support structures (i.e. the military includes the leadership, soldiers, veterans, military families). This will help as we analyze how to weaken the structure.

3. Identify the underlying principles that are the foundation of the pillars (i.e. sexism, greed, lies, etc).

Analyse a Pillar

Choose a pillar that your group wants to knock down. Consider your group's mission as you make your decision. Draw another set of pillars, writing name of the institution from your chosen pillar in the triangle. Now analyze what holds up that problem. The questions in "Analyze why this problem exists" in the Nonviolent Campaign section of this handbook are helpful analysis tools. This can become the basis for your strategy development.

Note to Facilitators: Explain to the group that while the problem seems hard to shake, the inverted triangle symbolilzes its weakness. Whole pillars to do not need to be knocked down to weaken the power, weakening the pillars can have a great effect.

Back to table of content

Name: 10/10 Strategies Time: 30 minutes, or longer Goal or purpose of the exercise:

This exercise helps people learn about the rich history of nonviolent campaigns, getting a better understanding of campaigns, tactics and movement

How it's done/facilitator's notes

The facilitator asks people to break into small groups of 5-6 (groups should be of equal numbers.) Ask one person in each group to list numbers 1 to 10 on a piece of paper. Tell groups they are “competing” with one another to see who can do the task in the fastest time, as opposed to our usual cooperative style. Tell each group to list 10 wars as quickly as possible, raising their hands when they are done. Facilitator should quietly note the time. Then ask them to list 10 nonviolent campaigns, and again raise their hands when done. Note how it takes longer to come up with the nonviolent campaigns then the wars (which we will not talk about here). Starting with the “winning” group, write their list of nonviolent campaigns on a wall chart. Ask other groups to add to the list. There will probably be a mix of movements, tactics, campaigns, etc. List them all and then use the list to explain the differences so people learn about strategic processes and how effective strategies develop. For example, the list may include “anti-apartheid” ( movement), “Salt March” (a campaign) and “sit-ins” (a tactic). See the Glossary of terms in this handbook. Using the list, ask the participants to describe components of campaigns, identify tactics, and describe what makes a movement. Use a well known campaign as a case study to learn about strategic development of nonviolent campaigns. You can also use this list to introduce people to campaigns they are not familiar with. This list can become the basis of a longer discussion. Adjust the time according the group's needs and knowledge of campaigns.

Back to table of content

Name: Hassle/Parallel Line Time: Minimum 15 minutes Goal or purpose of the exercise:

To give people an opportunity to solve a hassle or conflict using nonviolence. To practice what it feels like to be in both roles in a conflict. This is a good introductory exercise for many situations.

How it's done/facilitator's notes:

The facilitator asks people to form two rows of an equal number of people facing one another (you can add another row, which will play the role of observer and then comment during the debriefing on what the person saw during the exercise). Then ask them to reach out to the person across from them to make sure they know who they will be relating to. Explain that there are only two roles in this exercise, everyone in one line has the same role, the people opposite them have another role. Each person relates only to the person across from them. The facilitator explains the roles for each side, describes the conflict and who will start it. Give them a few seconds of silence to get in the role and then tell them to begin. Depending on the situation, it may be a brief hassle (less than a minute) or you can let it go longer, but not more than 3 or 4 minutes. Then call "stop" and debrief. Debriefing questions should include: what did people do, how did they feel, what ways did you find to solve or deal with the conflict, what did you notice about your body language, on reflection what do you wish you had done, etc. Replay the exercise, switching roles. So that people do not interact with the same person, move one line up by having the person at the end go to the other end of that line.

Examples of roles:

Someone planning to engage in nonviolent action/someone close to them who is opposed to their participation. Blockading a weapons or government facility/angry worker Protester/counter-protester or angry passer-by Protester committed to nonviolence guidelines/protester breaking nonviolence guidelines

Back to table of content

1) Make sure that the space where the training will occur has enough room for people to do role plays and exercises, to sit in a circle, and that it is accessible to those coming.

2) Make sure there is a wall board or paper to write on.

3) Food and beverages are important; make sure someone is responsible for it or that participants are asked to bring something to share.

4) Outreach should include a clear description of the training and the need for full participation, its length, etc.

Back to table of content

By Andreas Speck

Introduction

Since 2001, War Resisters' International has coordinated international activities around 15 May - the International Day of Conscientious Objection. The day began in 1982 as European CO Day, but since 1986 has been celebrated as International Day of Conscientious Objection. War Resisters' International sees activities around 15 May as an opportunity for conscientious objection activists to share their experience, and learn from each other's struggles and campaigns. Since 2002, these activities include an international event, often with a nonviolence training and a nonviolent action as major parts.

Activities

The first event of this kind took place in 2002 in Belgium. The planned action there was a blockade of the NATO headquarters on 15 May. While the object of the action had been decided in advance, the entire action was planned during the week-long meeting, with participants from Belgium, Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Macedonia, Croatia, and Turkey. This led to quite a few challenges in terms of experience and languages. Besides training and preparing for the action, the participants also wrote a public declaration.

In 2003, in Israel, a more or less public seminar was added to the programme. Still, the nonviolence training and jointly preparing for the action formed a major part of the week. During the nonviolence training participants learned about nonviolence, power, nonviolent tools for analysing power, and developing nonviolent campaigns. This was then put into practice with the planning of an action for 15 May.

There were heated discussions on the aim for the action - how much to focus on the occupation, or on conscientious objection, or militarisation in Israel. In the end consensus was reached on a set of several main aims: to highlight International CO day and conscientious objection as an international campaign, to raise awareness about the role of the military in every day life in Israel, not to antagonise soldiers, and to do an action that might inspire other actions.

In 2004, the event took place in Chile - and the main language of the meeting was Spanish. Again, the format of the event was similar to the one used the year before - but the dynamics were quite different, with most of the participants coming from Latin America. The joint planning and training for the action proved to be an important part of the learning experience.

With Greece in 2005 the event moved back to Europe. Again, the training and the joint planning for an action were a major part of the event.

In 2006 the International Day on Conscientious Objection moved to the United States. Here, the focus was on sharing experience through a seminar, and less on an action. This was partly due to many actions taking place on the same day already, so that it didn't seem to be effective to add just another action to the day.

In Colombia in 2007, activities included an antimilitarist concert, an international meeting, mainly focused on the planning and discussion of international solidarity for Colombian COs, and an action on 15 May in the city of Medellin.

Challenges

The events pose challenges on several levels. Here, I don't want to go into the major challenge of fundraising for these events, as this is beyond the scope of this book - although the finances have a huge impact on the event itself.

Other challenges include:

Decision making: how to decide about the focus and country for each year? Organisation: organisation of the event in cooperation between the WRI office and the local host group Programme/Training/Action: How does this address the needs of the local host group, but also of the international participants?

No one person would be able to do a proper evaluation of all these issues on his/her own. Instead, I want to present some reflections.

Decision making

Due to the demise of the International Conscientious Objection Meeting (ICOM) in the late 1990s, War Resisters' International took over the coordination of the day in 2001. However, there was no existing CO network to decide on the focus for the next year - something which still is a problem. Initially, it then fell to the WRI office and the WRI Executive to make this decision. After 15 May in Israel, attempts have been made (unsuccessfully) to involve participants of past 15th of May events in the decision making process (through an e-list).

Next it was proposed, if possible, to involve the annual WRI Council meeting in the decision making process. However, due to the lack of representation of CO activists on the Council, this too has not been too successful. Now the decision rests with the committee of WRI's Right to Refuse to Kill programme.

Clearly, the decision making process is not satisfactory. It points to the lack of a truly international network of conscientious objection movements, not only within WRI, but also beyond.

Organisation

The organisation of such an event has not always been easy. In 2002, most of the international organisation fell to the WRI office, with the Belgian host mainly providing the logistics. In the following years the hosts played a bigger role in the organisation of the event, including the programme.

One major problems has often been the different time scales. While such an event - including the fundraising for it - requires several months up to one year of preparation, local groups often work in terms of weeks, or just a few months.

A more fundamental problem is to integrate the international desire for an annual event on a particular date with the strategies of local campaigns, ensuring that the international action contributes to an ongoing build-up and is not just a one-off item of action tourism.

Programme/Training/Action

At the first international CO day event organised by WRI, there was little formal programme, and most of the time was spent on exchanging experience, and training and preparing for the action. In subsequent years a seminar was added to the programme, in response to the need expressed by the local host group to have a more "public side" of the event (besides the action).

There has always been a tension between three different aspects: sharing information and experience about each other's campaigns, a public seminar, and training/preparing for a joint action. With the move to a more fixed and public programme, including a seminar, it was often possible to present the experience of different countries in the public seminar. However, what other activists already know - and want to know on top of that - is often very different from what other seminar participants expect.

Training and preparing for an action takes a lot of time. While practically working together in the preparation of one action is a good experience, and a good exercise at group building, it leaves little time for other discussions. The question has been asked: is this the best use of the time spent together?

Also the action itself can lead to tensions. What are the expectations of the local hosts? What are the risks involved for local activists, and for international participants? What are the local sensitivities? It takes a lot of time, and listening to each other, to get an understanding of potential problems with a certain form of action, and to come to a consensus over the type of action. Looked at it from this perspective, a few days are not a lot of time, especially as the very practical preparation - banners, or other material needed for the action - also needs to happen during that time.

Concluding remarks

In general it has to be said that none of the actions - and none of the events - have been perfect. It has never been possible to resolve all the tension, but still - generally speaking - participants and organisers always had a positive feeling after the event.

Personally, I feel the training part has been important, and I think it has been a pity that it hasn't been on the agenda of the last two years. True, we often tried to do too much in too little time, but the training and planning an action together has been an important part of creating a better understanding of each others' political perspectives, and action cultures.

Still, the challenge remains to combine this with more time for a more thorough exchange of campaigning experience, if we want to learn from each other as CO activists and movements.

Andreas Speck

back to table of content

Since this is an international Handbook, we realise that many groups will translate materials to create their own handbooks. If you are thinking of producing your own handbook, here are some tips. First, you need to be clear about your goals and the amount of energy you are willing to put into a handbook (see questions below under goals and content). Another important aspect is thinking about what would make your handbook special.

Here is a list of questions that may be useful before starting your own handbook project:

Goals

What is the main reason of the handbook? Who is the handbook for? How do you want the handbook to be used? What do you need to include in the handbook? Have you checked existing handbooks? What don't you like about them or find not useful?

Content

What topics and themes do you want in the handbook? How do you want to structure the handbook? What is the length of your handbook? Will you use only new texts or existing ones? Who is choosing existing texts and writes new ones? What is the timeline for this work? How should the handbook be used? Can people just read a section that is relevant or is it that you need to read the full handbook?

Production

How would you fund the handbook, Do you want to sell if or give it out for free? What will the distribution scope be? What kind of layout do you want (e.g., paper size, graphic styles)? How would you evaluate the handbook?

Back to table of content

Boycott

Social, economic, or political noncooperation.

Bustcard

Pocket guideline with recommendations on what to do if stopped by the police while doing an action.

Campaign

A campaign is a connected series of activities and actions done over a period of time to achieve specific, stated goals. Campaigns are started by a group of people with a common understanding and vision, who identify the goals and begin the process of research, education and training that strengthens and grows the number of participants who engage in the activities and action.

Civil disobedience

Is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent resistance.

Consensus decision making

Consensus decision making differs greatly from majority decision making. While majority decision making often leads to a power struggle between two different solutions, consensus decision making aims to take everyone's concerns on board, often modifying a proposed solution several times in the process. It is very much based on listening and respect, and participation by everyone.

Constructive programme

Constructive programme is the process of building a new society in the shell of the old. As Robert Burrowes describes it: “For the individual, constructive programme meant increased power-from-within through the development of personal identity, self-reliance, and fearlessness. For the community, it meant the creation of a new set of political, social, and economic relations.” In cases where political revolutions have taken place but the population was not organized to exercise self-determination, the creation of a new society has been extremely difficult, and the usurpation of power by a new dictatorship has too often been the result.

Conflict Resolution

Reconciling opposing perspectives, stories, or experiences and deciding on a response that promotes and protects the human rights of all parties concerned.

Debriefing

Debriefing is a process to go through after an action, or after a training experience, sharing with other group members what you experienced and felt and eventually even what you learnt.

Direct Action

The words "nonviolent direct action" conjure up pictures of people sitting in the road to blockade an airbase. Strictly speaking, however, direct action is any action where individuals or groups act directly themselves to try to bring about change rather than asking or expecting others to act on their behalf. Interrupting a pro-nuclear sermon in church would be direct action; writing to a vicar's bishop to complain would be indirect action - either could be an effective way of raising the issue.

Empowerment

Supporting people to have more control over their own lives. Empowerment can involve people gaining skills (or having their own skills and knowledge), increasing self-confidence and developing self-reliance.

Facilitation

Is used in a variety of group settings, to describe the action of a facilitator whose role it is to work with group processes to ensure meetings run well and achieve a high degree of consensus, to help a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to plan to achieve them without taking a particular position in the discussion.

Gender

The socially constructed roles and relationships of an between women and men; and between women and women, and men and men. Gender is an acquired identity that is learned, changes over time, and varies widely within and across cultures. Gender is different from sex.

Human Rights

Legal rights guaranteeing every human being's life, liberty and security of person, based on international treaties and law.

Mediation

A help in resolving conflicts. Mediation means that a third party helps the conflicting parties to deal with their conflict through dialogue. A mediator does not solve the conflict, but helps the opponents to get insight in their own and the other's needs and feelings, and to come out of the conflict in a way that is satisfactory for both.

Nonviolence

Either, (1) The behavior of people who in a conflict refrain from violent acts. Or, (2) Any of several belief systems that reject violence on principle, not just as impractical. Otherwise, the term is best not used, since it often contributes to ambiguity and confusion. To describe specific actions or movements, the recommended terms are: "nonviolent action," "nonviolent resistance," or "nonviolent struggle."

Nonviolent action

A technique of action in conflicts in which participants conduct the struggle by doing -- or refusing to do -- certain acts without using physical violence. It is an alternative to both passive submission and violence. The technique includes many specific methods, which are grouped into three main classes: nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention.

Nonviolent resistance

Nonviolent struggle, conducted largely by noncooperation, in reaction to a disapproved act, policy, or government. The broader terms "nonviolent action: and "nonviolent struggle" are therefore preferred to refer to the overall nonviolent technique of action and to action in which the nonviolent group also takes the initiative or intervenes, as in a sit-in.

Nonviolent struggle

A synonym for "nonviolent action." This term may be used also to indicate that the nonviolent action in a conflict is particularly purposeful or aggressive. "Nonviolent struggle" is especially useful to describe nonviolent action against determined and resourceful opponents who use repressive measures and countermeasures.

Pacifism

The opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organisation of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace (pacificism); to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defence of self and others.

People power

The power capacity of a mobilized population and its institutions using nonviolent forms of struggle. The term was especially used during the 1986 Philippine nonviolent insurrection.

Power

Power can be defined as the ability to have an impact on the world. Power may be seen in different forms:

Power with - power that comes from people acting in co-operation together. Individually, they may be powerless, but together they are greater than the sum of their parts. Power to - an enabling power, derived from an inner conviction, acquired knowledge or skill, an investment of trust or assistance from others, or from the ability to use external resources (eg money, tools). Power over - the power of dominance in which the will of one person or group prevails. Power against - the power to prevent or restrain or refuse Snatch squad

A snatch squad is a police riot control tactic where several officers, usually in protective riot gear, rush forwards, sometimes in a flying wedge formation to break through the front of the crowd, to snatch one or more individuals from the demonstration which they are opposing.

Social movement

Are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organsations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change.

Strategy and Tactics

The terms tactics and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns activity and decision-making that lead to tactical execution. Strategy: is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning". Strategy is differentiated from tactic or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed. Strategies are used to make the problem or problems easier to understand and solve.

Violence

The infliction on people of physical injury or death, or the threat to do so. All behavior cannot be neatly classified as either "violence" or "nonviolence," and several categories fall between these two extremes, including "destruction of property." In reporting a demonstration or resistance movement which is primarily or exclusively nonviolent, care is required to distinguish it, for example, from the acts of violence by small numbers of persons (who may be undisciplined or deliberately disruptive for political reasons or as agents provocateurs). Similarly, a demonstration should not be described as "violent" when it is violently attacked by police or troops but nevertheless maintains its nonviolent discipline.