Nonviolence Handbook

Back to table of content

Within two years of its founding in 1998, the Serbian youth group Otpor (Resist) played a central role in bringing down Slobodan Milošević. Initially their campaign aimed to change attitudes towards resisting Milošević, for instance by using nonviolent 'guerilla' tactics of communication (graffiti, street theatre, etc.), often using humour to attract interest and to reduce fear. Increasingly, they put pressure on the divided democratic opposition and found points of unity to counter Milošević and to undermine 'the pillars of his power'.

 

Nonviolence training workshops played an important role in spreading an understanding of how they could weaken the regime. When Milošević did try to steal the elections, they were in a position to expose him and ultimately to stop him. When crowds surrounded the parliament building, the police were unwilling to disperse them. The most famous image is of a bulldozer driving into the parliament; by that time, the police made no effort to prevent this. The next day Milošević resigned.

Otpor had played a vital role in achieving a necessary step in democratising Serbia—removing Milošević—but subsequent progress towards democracy has been disappointing.

Resources:

'Bringing Down a Dictator', DVD, 60 minutes, a production of York Zimmerman Inc., Washington, D.C., USA Albert Cevallos,'Whither the Bulldozer?: Nonviolent Revolution and the Transition to Democracy in Serbia' (US Institute of Peace special report No 72 - downloadable from http://www.usip.org) The Website for the Centre for Applied NonViolent Action. Strategies includes articles by Otpor activists and others on their strategy and tactics: http://www.canvasopedia.org/content/serbian_case/otpor_strategy.htm

back to table of content

Name: Conflict line Time: Minimum 15 minutes Goal or purpose of the exercise:

To have an experience on how we deal with conflict or how we often think about violence as a solution to solve a problem. An exercise to begin to question our militaristic mindset and challenge ourselves to find nonviolent and win-win solutions.

How it's done/facilitator's notes:

The facilitator asks people to form two rows of an equal number of people facing one another. Then ask them to reach out to the person across from them to make sure they know who they will be relating to. Tell them that there is an invisible line between them. Ask the pairs to reach across the line, shake hands and hold. The only instruction is: ‘Get the other person over to your side.’ Then: ‘Now!’

Debriefing

what happened? What was the automatic response to the instruction and 'now!'?

NOTICE: many of us have a tendency to react with violence, to struggle with physical force, that suggest violence as the first, perhaps only, option.

Do we have militaristic mindset? Who 'won'? Did anyone talk about alternative solutions? Was there any pair where both won? How might that happen? How could they both follow the instructions?

Possible win-win solutions: the pairs exchange places or they go first to one side and then the other

What if pairs were men and women? Who would ‘win’ in such a set-up? In same-sex pairs, there is significant doubt in advance of who will ‘win’ if the option is physical force; in male-female set-up, less doubt, some degree of certainty as to who will win if force is the solution This is the situation in which you will likely find yourself; the ‘female’ up against the armed military or security ‘male’; violence is not a logical tool to use What solutions might be attempted?

Back to table of content

It is important to document campaigns so people can learn from them. Just as we have learned from the nonviolent campaigns of people throughout time and around the world, documenting our own struggles and stories may help people in other times and places. This guide, created for WRI's Nonviolent Social Empowerment case studies, can be used by an individual or group to determine the information needed to construct a case study of a campaign. This guide can also be used to remind us of what we need to consider in organising a campaign.

Overview

Nature of the campaign - what was/is the issue? when did it start/finish? Geographical and (brief) historical context Participants - who (analysis of class, race/ethnic, gender, religious group, age, sexuality, ability, other) - did this change at different phases of the movement?

Chronology

Starting point Were there (have there been) distinct phases? Were there particular moments of expansion? What were the peaks? What were other key events?

Nonviolence

Was there a public profile of wanting to avoid violence? Was there a declared public policy of nonviolence? If so, what was meant by nonviolence? Was there consensus around this? What kind of differences around this? What measures were taken to implement a policy of nonviolence? Was there nonviolence training? Were there nonviolence guidelines? Was the campaign seen as shifting the values of society more towards nonviolence? Were there particular sources of inspiration for types of action or ways of organising?

Means

What use was made of official channels, lobbying, electoral processes, constitutional mechanisms, and with what impact? How was the mainstream media used? What role or influence did they have? How did they try to develop or use theit own public media or alternative media? With what impact? Did the campaign try to establish alternatives? Were they meant to be temporary or permanent? What happened? What kind of means did they use to build a movement culture or sense of connectedness? To what effect? Did they use withdrawal of cooperation as a tactic? At what stage? With what effect? Did they try to directly disrupt of obstruct an activity they were campaigning against? At what stage? With what focus? With what participation? With what effect? How did they use conventional means of protest? How did they combine them with other methods?

Organisation

Did the campaign agree on a formal structure? What informal structures played an important role? Was the campaign concerned to have a participatory structure of organisation and decision-making? If so, how were people trained in the process? How did the campaign link with other groups/movements? What importance did you give to coalition-building? With what criteria for alliances? How did the campaign address the needs of activists to learn, to grow, to rest, to sustain their commitment? How did the campaign address the possible contradiction between the needs of security and the desire for participation? What kind of repression did the movement expect to face? What provision did they make to support the people most affected? Did the campaign have a clear time frame and concept of strategic development? How did the campaign develop its resources (human, social, economic)?

Goals and outcomes

What were the initial goals? How have the goals evolved? Why? Was it an aim to empower participants? In what way? How were the goals framed - eg with what type of slogan? Was there the flexibility to revise goals, eg to respond to particular events, or to build on success? How did they expect the institution holding power of those who 'benefit' from being dominant to change? (eg to be converted, to accommodate some of your demands, to be coerced into accepting the demands, or to disintegrate/dissolve) To what extent did they achieve their goals? - short, medium, long term With what side effects? - positive and negative Did their adversary make any mistakes that significantly helped their cause?

Empowerment

All the questions have some kind of link with empowerment. This concluding section returns to some themes but with more focus. Answers need to encompass the dimensions of power within, power-with and power-in-relation to.

Who was empowered? to be or do what? (to join in, to share responsibility, to take

initiative, to maintain their activism)

What contributed to this sense of empowerment? (eg training, group confidence,

achieving strategic goals)

How did the experience of different phases of a movement affected the sense of

empowerment?

What about people involved who did not feel empowered? How were strategies of empowerment discussed / constructed? personal, group,

social?

Was any participant/group disempowered - how? How did this effect the campaign?

Back to table of content

Gene Sharp researched and catalogued 198 methods of nonviolent action published in The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 1973. These methods are broken into three broad classifications: Protest and Persuasion, Noncooperation, and Nonviolent Intervention. These are further grouped into sections. The full list is available on this wiki page or at http://www.aeinstein.org.

 

1. Protests and Persuasion

Demonstrations – Many people expresses what they want by walking together in the street. –For example the demonstrations 15 February 2003, which was the biggest anti-war demonstration ever. There were demonstrations in more than 600 cities around the world. Just in London two million people demonstrated.

Protest lists – Signing your name on a list to express dissent with a certain politics, for instance a protest against Swedish weapons exports to the USA and UK during the Iraq war.

 

2. Non-cooperation

Boycott – To refuse to buy merchandise or a service to show dissatisfaction with the one selling it. For example the boycott of South African products during the apartheid regime. First individuals and organisations started to boycott South African merchandise and after a while entire countries boycotted South Africa

Strike – To refuse to work. For example during the first Intifada, the Palestinian resistance that started 1987, most Palestinians refused to work for Israelis. Israel lost a lot of money when they didn’t have access to cheap Palestinian labour and the economy stagnated.

Political non-cooperation – The refusal to do military service or to perform an extradition. War Resisters International is one of the organisations that supports those that want to refuse to do military service.

Refusal to cooperate – For example during the second world war Norwegian teachers refused to follow the Nazi curriculum for schools. They were sent to concentration camps because of their disobedience, but most of them were taken back when the Nazis understood that they wouldn’t give in.

 

3. Intervention

Blockades – To place your body in the way of something. For example Israelis and international solidarity activist that get in the way of Israeli bulldozers that are about to demolish Palestinian homes.

Preventive Presence – To protect endangered persons in conflict areas. For example peace observers in Mexico, Israel-Palestine or Colombia.

Plowshare Actions – To openly disarm weapon and to be willing to take your sentence. For example the disarming of Trident nuclear submarines in Scotland.

back to table of content

View version in print edition of the Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns

A tool for analysing the progress of your movement

Silke Kreusel and Andreas Speck

Activists often feel disempowered, although their movement is doing well and on the road to success. Understanding the way a movement works and recognising its success therefore can empower movement activists and groups. The Movement Action Plan (MAP), developed in the 1980s by Bill Moyer, is a good tool for this, as it describes the eight stages of successful movements and the four roles activists have to play.

Strategic Assumptions

MAP is based on seven strategic assumptions:

1. Social movements have been proven to be powerful in the past, and hopefully they can be powerful in the future.

2. Social movements are at the centre of society. They are based on society's most progressive values: justice, freedom, democracy, civil rights. Although they oppose the state or the government, social movements are promoting a better society not working against it.

3. The real issue is “social justice” versus “vested interests”. The movement works for social justice and those in power represent vested interests.

4. The grand strategy is to promote participatory democracy. Lack of real democracy is a major source of injustice and social problems. In the fight for the movement's goal – the right to conscientious objection in Turkey, or stopping road construction in the UK – developing participatory democracy is key.

5. The target constituency is the ordinary citizen, who gives power to powerholders by consenting to them. The central issue in social movements is the struggle between the movement and powerholders to win the support of the majority of the people, who ultimately hold the power to preserve the status quo or create change.

6. Success is a long-term process, not an event. To achieve success, the movement needs to be successful in a long series of sub-goals.

7. Social movements must be nonviolent.

Eight stages of social movements

A movement begins without knowing it. In Stage I, business as usual, the main aim of movement groups is to get people thinking, to show that there is a problem.

The next step is to show the failure of established channels (Stage II). Using hearings, legal processes, participation in administrative proceedings, and so on, the movement has to prove that these institutions won't act for the people to solve the problem – that people will have to act themselves.

This leads to ripening conditions (Stage III) for the development of a social movement. People start to listen and form new groups, small civil disobedience actions start to dramatise the problem. The powerholders get a bit irritated, but mainly go on as usual.

If the movement does its homework well (organising new groups, networking and coalition-building) it can take off (Stage IV) after a trigger event. This might be organised by the movement – the occupation of the construction site at Wyhl, Germany, in 1974 triggered the German anti-nuclear movement – or something done by the powerholders. The trigger event leads to massive demonstrations, large campaigns of civil disobedience and extensive media coverage. Although the movement has won a lot of public sympathy the powerholders usually won't give up at this stage.

This often leads to a perception of failure (Stage V) by many activists. This is enhanced by decreasing participation in movement events and negative media coverage.

But at the same time the movement is winning over the majority (Stage VI). Until now, the movement has focused on protest; now it is important to offer solutions. Nearly three quarters of society agree that there is a need for change. It is now important to win the struggle over the kind of change to be made. The powerholders will try to cheat the movement, increase repression, play tricks (the German government now trying to send nuclear waste to Ahaus instead of Gorleben: see page 6). The movement must aim to stop the tricks and promote an alternative solution.

Actual success (Stage VII) is a long process and often difficult to recognise. The movement's task is not just to get its demands met, but to achieve a paradigm shift, a new way of thinking. Just to turn off all nuclear power plants without changing our view on energy only moves the problem from radioactivity to carbon dioxide (but is a success anyway). Just to get some women into the office doesn't change the structure of a patriarchal society.

After the movement wins – either by confrontational struggle or a long-term weakening of the powerholders – the movement needs to get its success implemented. Consolidation of success and moving over to other struggles (Stage VIII) is now the movement's task.

 

Four activist roles

Activists have many different tasks at the eight stages. They cannot all be done by one kind of person, and typically you can identify four main types of activist. All need to be present and work efficiently for the movement to succeed.

The rebel is the kind of activist many people identify with social movements. Through nonviolent direct actions and publicly saying “no”, rebels put the problem on the political agenda. But they can be ineffective by identifying themselves as the lonely voice on society's fringe and playing the militant radical. Rebels are important in Stages III and IV and after any trigger event, but they usually move over to other ripening movements in Stage VI or later.

Reformers are often badly valued in movements, but they are the ones who prove the failure of existing channels or promote alternative solutions. However, they often tend to believe in the institutions or propose reforms too small to consolidate the movement's success.

Citizens make sure the movement doesn't lose contact with its main constituency. They show that the movement acts at the centre of society (teachers, physicians, and farmers participating in the Gorleben protests), and protect it against repression. They can be very ineffective when they still believe in the powerholders' claim to serve public interests.

The change agent is the forth and somehow key role in any movement. They promote education and convince the majority of society, they organise grassroots networks and promote long-term strategies. They too can be ineffective by promoting utopian visions or advocating only a single approach. They also tend to ignore personal issues and needs of activists.

What's up now?

Social movements are complex phenomena: they don't follow the MAP like a road on the map. But trying to identify the stage of your movement and the kind of activists involved helps a lot in recognising success and in developing future. If you are lost on the track – check the MAP!

 

Originally printed in Peace News, No 2423, March 1998

Back to table of content

1) Facilitators should realise that it may take as long to prepare for as to actually present/facilitate the training. It is important that co-facilitators work together to build the agenda and are clear who is responsible for what and how they will work together.

2) Be realistic about the amount of time allotted for each section. Don't give in to the pressure to do the training quickly if it can't be done.

3) Start the training with introductions. Break the ice with introductory exercises. If the group members know each other well, ask a question so people learn something new about each other.

4) If trainers don't have enough information about people's experiences, use non-competitive ways to ask. Set a tone, explaining that the trainers need the information but that it is not an exercise in identifying who is 'better'.

5) Early in the training, have exercises that will encourage participation, such as a simple hassle line.

6) Balance activity in pairs or trios with activity in larger groups.

7) Mix discussion with moving exercises; provide regular breaks.

8) Keep track of time, and mark possible cuts if you get behind schedule. But don't cut the last items as they may be some of the most important, such as the scenario role play.

9) Always leave time for evaluation, and use different forms of evaluation. Write on wall charts 'what went well' (+) and 'what could have been better' (>). Ask a series of questions to solicit comments; use a go around or a brainstorm method. Written evaluation forms are very helpful for long trainings.

This Handbook is written for groups, perhaps a group that has come together for a specific cause or with a specific theme, perhaps a group based on friendship or affinity in what you feel about the world, perhaps even a group formed for one occasion. Even an individual stand usually requires on some group support. The campaigns section of the Handbook (Section Three) is more useful for groups who plan to stay together for the long-term, while the section on preparing for action (Section Four) might be more appropriate for those joining together for a specific event.

Strong groups of people who stay together, who work well together and strengthen each other, give a movement strength. Groups come together in many different ways, and those that are most effective and enjoyable tend to have something distinctive, some mark of their own creativity, some characteristic that makes them flourish. This arises from the special combinations that happen within a group and the particular balance the group arrives at between the various desires and talents of its members.

This section offers some perspectives that you might think about as a member of the group, some of which the group will discuss and make a conscious decision on, some of which will evolve.

 

Strenthening a Group

The first point is how much importance people attach to the way the group itself functions and its attitudes. This itself can be a never-ending source of conflict! There are balances to be struck, such as between those impatient with discussion who urgently want to be out 'there' and 'doing', and those who want more clarity, be it about goals, about being prepared to argue a case in public, about who the group should try to reach and the forms of action it should consider, or about how the group organises itself and functions. Somehow a new group has to do its best to find its own way and overall direction, some happy medium between people pulling in different directions. If the group has a lot of energy and initiative, sub-groups may take up particular themes. If the group involves people with conflicting political philosophies or attitudes, that needs to be acknowledged and made a source of strength rather than a block on creativity.

Whether your group is large and open or small and limited by affinity (see 'Affinity Groups') you want new people to feel welcome, and you want everyone to feel able to contribute. This raises issues of cultural diversity, of oppressive behaviour, of class, race and gender dynamics, and of power within the group. Dealing with these issues can itself be a source of tension, although not dealing with them can be even worse. You'll need to find ways to tackle these questions in a supportive atmosphere. Section Two on gender offers some examples.

In general, it is useful for a group that plans to stay together to organise some special sessions in addition to the usual meetings, or to set aside a slot in the regular meetings for something a bit different. At times, this might have a practical focus, such as skill-sharing, campaign development, or even a more detailed look at a particular campaign topic. At times, this might be more group-directed, such as activities that build rapport (banner-making, singing) or ways to improve group functioning.

 

Exploring Differences

A nonviolent action group will also at some point benefit from considering some of the issues attached to the term nonviolence—including forms of nonviolence and their repercussions, values, attitudes, and goals. Any issue that touches on group members' deeply held convictions must be handled with respect for differences, aiming less to establish a group position than to share perceptions and perspectives. Simply understanding each other better will deepen what you're trying to do together.

Take the question of nonviolence itself. A commitment to nonviolence can be a unifying factor for a group, but is not necessarily so; there are often divisions, especially between those prepared to use nonviolence for specific purposes and those who hold it as a far-reaching philosophy. We suggest that some issues might be dealt with by a collective declaration of principles (see 'Principles of Nonviolent Action', and 'Nonviolence Guidelines'), but even a group that expresses a commitment to nonviolent action will have different preconceptions about other aspects, both positive and negative of nonviolence. A good discussion around the issues might be stimulating, even inspiring, but a not-so-good one can exacerbate tensions and frustration.

A relatively safe way of exploring differences is a 'barometer' of values, also known as a 'spectrum' exercise. Someone develops a set of questions to explore different attitudes, actions, and factors. The questions are posed to the group, and people move on two axes: one, it is or isn't nonviolent, and two, I would or wouldn't do it myself. This can later develop into 'I would or would not want to be part of a group doing this'. (See 'Spectrum or Barometer')

A question like 'what is your group trying to achieve'? can have one simple answer, but each person in the group may have additional goals. Many different lines of thought or feeling can lead people to be involved in a group. Something as simple as a paired introductions exercise can be a good start in giving people space to explain what brought them.

In general, this Handbook does not much explore the perspective from which you engage in action, beyond a fairly loose idea of social transformation. Such perspectives will vary greatly from group to group and in different contexts. The point is not to establish uniformity, but to understand and even appreciate people's different ways of looking at things. In particular, if your group is considering something risky, you need to take the time to prepare properly, understanding the distinct attitudes each of you brings to the action and your preferences for how to respond to the risk.

How you understand the context in which you act affects your choice of methods. Commentators sometimes distinguish between 'conventional' and 'unconventional' forms of action. However, context can change all that. In a closed society, simply 'saying the unsayable' or 'breaking the silence' by quite conventional means can have an enormous, perhaps explosive, perhaps catalytic, impact. However, in other contexts, 'non-conventional' action—such as civil disobedience or strikes—might have become contained or normalised. Either because non-participants ignore it as 'oh, it's just them doing their thing again', or because the participants themselves have gotten stuck in a routinised form of action. Some social movement theorists (see Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly, Dynamics of Contention, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 7-9) have suggested that 'transgressive' and 'contained' action is a more useful distinction than 'conventional'/'non-conventional' action because it acknowledges the different impact various forms of action can have in different contexts. Some of the differences within your group (for instance, in attitudes to illegal activity) might stem from different analyses of the context for your action. (For more on contexts, see 'Sending the Protest Message', and 'Coping with the Stress and Strain of Taking a Stand')

What Do You Want?

As an activist, you need to think about what you want from a group. Do you want a group that attracts a wide range of people? Do you want a group with people who share a lot of attitudes and convictions and that will make a strong statement of those? Is there a way of combining the two? For instance, could you be part of an affinity group promoting nonviolence in the context of a broader campaign?

Until your group starts to take action, you don't know how much impact you could have. Groups usually don't sense the possibilities they can open until they actually go public. Just 14 women took part in the first demonstration of Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires; some other powerful movements began even smaller. Some simple, small actions have had far greater consequences than anyone could imagine. However, you also have to recognise that plenty of actions have much smaller consequences. A nonviolent action group needs to be aware of its full repertoire of action, have a strong sense of purpose, and be capable of analysing the context it is working in. This Handbook therefore includes material about preparing for action, about building up a campaign and about evaluating what you've done.

Вернуться к содержанию

Международная организация противников войны (МОПВ) выпустило данное Пособие, основываясь на опыте групп во многих странах и разных поколений активистов. В основе каждой ненасильственной кампании лежат изобретательность и преданность активистов, и качество их послания – послание, которое может поднять вопросы о том, как обстоят дела, разбудить людей от покорности происходящему и угрожающему, привлечь союзников, или потребовать права участия в принятии решений, которые влияют на их/нашу жизнь. Одна из центральных идей ненасильственных кампаний – «осознание своей силы»: того, как вы можете изменить положение дел, особенно, если объединитесь с другими.

Существует большое количество ярких примеров ненасильственных акций. Несомненно, умение заострять вопрос является одной из сильных сторон ненасилия; оно стремться заставить людей увидеть заново и начать действовать против того, что часто проходит незамеченным. Однако, все это не случается просто так. Оно созревает – в группах или кружках активистов, в дискуссиях, при обучении, обсуждении опыта, в экспериментах, в налаживании контактов. Данное пособие основано на том, что группы осуществили и как они это сделали. Мы не стремимся представить подробный план, но хотим предложить методы, которые сработали в различных случаях и могут быть приспособлены творческими активистами ненасилия к их собственной ситуации.

   Таким образом, данное опубликованное Пособие – выборка из  материалов  Международной организации противников войны которую можно получить у них или в интернете. Оно объединяет тексты, представляющие определенные темы, опыт и групповые упражнения. Вводный раздел определяет что мы подразумеваем под ненасилием; важность  обучения ненасилию; задачи для вашей группы; и нескольно кратких примеров исторического ненасилия. Раздел второй рассматривает один конкретный случай угнетения внутри самого  движения: гендер. Раздел третий дает образцы задач и методов для организации и упрощения тренинга. Раздел четвертый описывает ненасильственные кампании и акции, включая описание конструктивных программ и роли средств массовой информации. Раздел пятый предлагает конкретные подсказки для эффективной организации на разных стадиях. Раздел шестой приводит примеры деятельности и стратегии со всего мира.

   На протяжении всего Пособия мы описываем некоторые преимущества ненасилия в акциях и приводим примеры того, как оно работает. Если вам незнакомы термины, использованные в Пособии, обратитесь к глоссарию (Раздел десятый).

   Раздел седьмой дает примеры упражнений по  ненасильственным действиям. Данные упражнения для групп нацелены либо на углубление группового понимания задачи и друг друга, либо на помощь группе в повышении эффективности при проведении ненасильственных акций и кампаний. Как правило, упражнения предусматривают кого-либо в роли «ведущего» - представления их, объяснения что делать и почему, продвижения вперед, поощрения робких людей к высказыванию и экстровертов – к выслушиванию, особенно во время «отчета» в конце.

   Мы надеемся, что читатели сделают копии частей данного Пособия и переведут их или распространят их среди своих групп. В этом случае, не стесняйтесь в адаптировании написанного к  вашими потребностями. Раздел восьмой  предлагает советы – и соответственно поощряет! – к приспособлению того, что вы найдете здесь или на электронном сайте МОПВ в соответствии с вашей собственной ситуацией.

   Раздел десятый содержит подборку ресурсов. Если вы найдете в данном Пособии что-либо особенно интересное, вы также можете посетить электронный сайт МОПВ (http://wri-irg.org/wiki/index.php/Nonviolence_Handbook), чтобы узнать больше. Вы сможете найти более развернутые версии некоторых статей, дополнительные публикации и упражнения и гораздо больше источников. В МОПВ мы стараемся делиться опытом, а не просто учить, что означает, что другие с удовольствием прочитают о том, чему вы научились на вашем опыте с ненасильственными кампаниями или трегингами. Поэтому, пожалуйста внесите свой вклад в электронную страницу МОПВ. И, если вы переведете часть Пособия, пожалуйста, отправьте ваш перевод на адрес info@wri-irg.org, чтобы мы могли разместить его на электронной станице.

kembali ke daftar isi

Peperangan akan berhenti tatkala kaum pria menolak berperang dan kaum wanita menolak menyetujuinya

—Jesse Wallace Hughan, Pendiri Liga Non-perang—

Tampaknya sederhana dan jelas bahwa kita menginginkan baik laki-laki maupun perempuan terlibat dalam perjuangan kita untuk melawan pe­pe­rangan dan ketidakadilan. Bagaimanapun juga, jika kita benar-benar ingin meman­faatkan talenta, energi, dan wawasan orang lain secara penuh, kita perlu menerapkan kesadaran jen­der untuk mengelola diri sendiri men­desain kam­panye, dan memimpin pelatihan-pelatihan untuk aksi.

Mengapa? karena jender, definisi masyarakat kita tentang peran laki-laki dan perempuan, maskulinitas dan feminitas mempengaruhi kita semua. Tra­disi masyarakat yang telah membentuk maskulinitas sebagai sesuatu yang dominan, agresif, dan mengontrol serta feminitas sebagai kelemahan, submisif dan me­layani, telah secara mendalam mempengaruhi masing-masing kita. Ke­sadar­an jender membantu kita meyakinkan bahwa dalam tindakan dan kampanye non-kekerasan kita, kita tidak melanggengkan ketidakadilan yang sama, yang coba kita hentikan.

Dalam kampanye anti militer, kesadaran jender dan analisis berbasis jender juga merupakan sarana yang sangat berharga untuk menciptakan stra­tegi yang efektif. Jender merupakan salah satu elemen yang selalu ada dalam setiap kon­flik. Mungkin jender bukan penyebab konflik, namun perbedaan pandangan mengenai maskulinitas dan feminimitas menjadi penyebab konflik dan menentukan cara orang bertikai. Sistem militer dibangun dari gagasan dan asumsi ter­tentu mengenai peran laki-laki dan perempuan. Jika kita ingin menciptakan struk­tur dan sistem non-kekerasan untuk memecahkan konflik, kita perlu men­cipta­kan asumsi dan harapan baru tentang jender.

Dalam bab ini, kami memasukkan konsep-konsep dan latihan-latihan untuk membantu Anda memasukkan kesadaran jender dalam pelatihan-pelatih­an Anda dan untuk meneliti kampanye dan aksi non-kekerasan Anda melalui kaca­­mata jender.

kembali ke daftar isi

Pusat Mediasi Walisongo bukan hanya sebuah lembaga yang bergerak dalam bidang penelitian tentang konflik, pelatihan, dan pengajaran tentang resolusi konflik, tetapi juga merupakan sebuah lembaga yang mengupayakan penyelesaian segala macam bentuk konflik secara damai. Ke­munculan lembaga ini merupakan respon terhadap khususnya situasi yang menyertai ambruknya rezim otoriter Orde Baru dan munculnya rezim yang menyebut dirinya reformasi. Rezim Orde Baru yang berwatak militeristik lebih mengedepankan pendekatan keamanan dalam setiap proses pembangunan. Konsekuensi dari pendekatan ini sering terdapatnya sejumlah pemaksaan yang disertai dengan tindakan-tindakan kekerasan. Demokrasi tidak berjalan. Rakyat menjadi objek daripada subjek pembangunan.

Ambruknya rezim Orde Baru pada akhir dekade 1990-an memberi ke­sempatan munculnya era demokrasi(tis) dan penguatan hak-hak sipil. Namun transisi dari era otoriter ke era demokratis ternyata tidak semudah yang di­bayangkan. Bagaimanapun pengalaman lama tak mudah untuk dilupakan dan begitu saja memakai yang baru. Artinya, transisi euforistis ini mem­butuhkan waktu yang lebih lama untuk benar-benar menjadi demokratis. Jika pada Orde Baru kekerasan banyak dilakukan oleh negara, pada rezim reformasi ke­kerasan banyak dilakukan oleh kelompok-kelompok sosial dalam masyarakat. Kekerasan itu banyak dipicu oleh perbedaan-perbedaan seperti per­bedaan etnis, agama, maupun pemahaman terhadap agama. Semua bentuk kekerasan itu membawa banyak korban. Konflik yang melibatkan ke­kerasan telah menyebabkan ribuan manusia meninggal dan ratusan ribu kehilangan harta dan terusir dari rumahnya. Suku Madura yang terusir dari Sambas dan akhirnya menetap di Kubu Raya di Kalimantan Barat merupakan dampak dari konflik etnis. Demikian pula penganut Ahmadiyah yang sampai sekarang belum bisa pulang ke rumah di Mataram, Nusa Tenggara Barat, adalah contoh lain. Mereka hingga kini masih tinggal di penampungan. Bahkan menurut kabar, mereka terancam diusir oleh pemerintah daerah untuk keluar dari NTB.

Kini, konflik kekerasan memang sudah tidak tampak dibanding beberapa tahun lalu. Namun bukan berarti sudah hilang sama sekali. Potensi konflik kekerasan masih sangat besar. Sejumlah konflik kekerasan itu hanyalah tiarap yang suatu saat, jika tidak dikelola dengan baik akan bangkit kembali sewaktu-waktu. Rumput masih kering, angin masih bertiup kencang. Se­men­tara api belum benar-benar padam. Rakyat masih miskin, pembangunan belum merata. Keadilan masih compang-camping. Provokator masih ber­gentayangan.

Dari uraian di atas, tampak ada pergeseran konflik kekerasan. Pada Orde Baru kebanyakan konflik melibatkan rakyat di satu sisi, dan pemerintah di sisi lain. Sebagai pemegang monopoli interpretasi atas realitas, pemerintah biasanya muncul sebagai pemenang, tentu saja dengan kekuatan ber­senjatanya. Namun pada era reformasi, konflik bukan lagi antara pemerintah dan rakyat, melainkan rakyat melawan rakyat. Dalam hal ini mayoritas melawan minoritas. Kaum mayoritas muncul sebagai pemenang. Secara geografis, suku Madura dan Ahmadiyah yang terlibat dalam konflik kekerasan di Indonesia adalah kelompok minoritas.

Saya melihat absennya kekerasan inilah saat yang tepat untuk meng­kampanyekan ide-ide maupun praktek non-kekerasan. Term non-kekerasan adalah sebenarnya sebuah filosofi yang menolak setiap bentuk kekerasan fisik. Pada prakteknya, term itu dilihat sebagai sebuah alternatif terhadap penerimaan dari segala bentuk penekanan maupun penggunaan senjata. Tujuan utama dari kampanye non kekerasan adalah terjadinya perubahan sosial dan politik. Dalam pengertian demikian itulah, maka itu dibedakan dari penerimaan pasif (pasifisme). Non kekerasan dan pasifisme memang sama-sama menolak terhadap penggunaan kekerasan, tetapi pasifisme lebih mengarah pada keputusan personal yang didasarkan prinsip-prinsip spiritual dan moral. Pasifisme tidak dimaksudkan bagi terjadinya perubahan sosial dan politik. Dengan demikian, secara teoritis, non kekerasan biasanya di­kam­panyekan manakala pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam konflik memiliki hubung­an interdependensi fungsional dimana yang satu tergantung dari yang lain, seperti halnya pemerintah dengan rakyatnya.

Para pendukung gerakan non kekerasan percaya bahwa kerjasama dan persetujuan adalah akar kekuasaan politik, semua rezim termasuk institusi birokrasi, keuangan, dan segmen-segmen bersenjata dalam masyarakat (seperti angkatan bersenjata dan polisi); tergantung pada ketertundukan rakyatnya. Fungsi-fungsi instutional bisa berjalan manakala ada jaminan bahwa rakyat mau tunduk pada aturan-aturan. Artinya, perlu ada persetujuan dari rakyat. Jika kerjasama dan persetujuan absen, maka perjalanan institusional akan timpang, atau bahkan tidak berjalan sama sekali.

Bagaimana kalau konflik kekerasan itu antar kelompok dalam masyarakat dimana ketergantungan antar kelompok itu sangat minimal, atau bahkan mungkin tidak ada? Sebagai bagian dari ekspresi civil society, seruan untuk meniadakan atau menolak tindakan-tindakan kekerasan saya rasa universal. Ini adalah dalam rangka membangun dunia yang lebih beradab. Untuk itulah maka saya berharap buku ini menjadi pemicu kecil bagi terjadi perubahan-perubahan yang besar dalam perdamaian.

Semarang, 28 Juni 2009

Achmad Gunaryo

WALISONGO MEDIATION CENTER (WMC) Jl. Walisongo 3-5 Semarang Indonesia 50181 telp/fax +62-24-7622080 e-mail:iwmc_smgind@yahoo.com http://wmc-iainws.com/

back to table of content

The processes and techniques which can be found below show/ prove that even in large groups of hundreds and thousands of people, it is possible to make decisions in a democratic, horizontal, participative manner, without hierarchy, delegations, hierarchies or votes/ voting.

Democracy, Civil Society, and Nonviolence

After decades of dictatorship under Suharto the democratic development in Indonesia is moving in a good direction. The state system is improving and a civil society is growing in size as well as importance. Any state pretending to be democratic is completely dependent on the existence of a strong civil society as a watchdog, corrective, and complement to the state.

The state power, like all other forms of power, will always be a possible source of corruption and other forms of misuse. The role of the many civil society actors is always follow what is going on; tell when things needs to be told, react when reactions are needed, and protest when times calls for protests. For a civil society to be strong, effective, and able to act wisely there is a need for high quality knowledge about how to act. Good intentions are fine, but far from sufficient. Skills in how to organise effective actions, good campaigns, strong movements are essential.

The translation of the present handbook is an important step and can be a starting point for a new phase in the Indonesian civil society. Not only Muslim countries all over the world would benefit from a huge and critical voice from a Indonesian civil society able to mobilise people, train them in effective nonviolent actions, organising campaigns, and disseminate the nonviolent solutions to pressing conflicts. Nonviolence is an integrated and necessary part of all democracies. To train and educate people, groups, and nations are crucial for a peaceful development. I know that WMC Indonesia is an excellent organisation for taking on such an important task. Their history and present work speaks for itself.

I am sure this book will not be collecting dust in the bookshelves but be used as the tool it is meant to be. And soon I hope to see new version with revised and expanded chapters based on practice and experiences from the Indonesian reality. Then we need to translate the updated Indonesian version to other languages. This is how the ”globalisation from below” is functioning when it is at its best; Empowering people fighting for rights, equality, and justices all over the world. Sharing our experiences and inspiring each other. The present book has contributions from several countries and cultures already but will of course benefit from the wisdom among the proud and experienced peoples of Indonesia. I wish all the readers and practitioners the very best luck with this book. And brothers and sisters all over the world are already waiting to hear from the actions following trainings and seminars based on this handbook.

Jørgen Johansen Peace and Conflict worker