Civil Resistance

Power Politics

Project on ‘Civil Resistance and Power Politics’

Oxford University is organizing an interdisciplinary research project on ‘Civil Resistance and Power Politics: Domestic and International Dimensions’. A landmark international conference on this topic will be held in Oxford on 15 to 18 March 2007, to be followed by a major scholarly edited book. There will also be certain other workshops and seminars, and other forms of product – e.g. journal articles, shorter books, web pages, and radio/TV programmes. A full-time Research Associate, Dr Thomas Davies, is co-ordinating the work. The project’s Organizing Committee consists of seven Oxford academics. The project also reflects extensive consultations with numerous other colleagues in Oxford, the UK generally, and many other countries.
1. PURPOSES
The Project on Civil Resistance and Power Politics: Domestic and International Dimensions will assess the nature and significance of civil (i.e. non-violent) resistance, especially, though not exclusively, in the period since the 1960s. It aims first and foremost to raise the academic level of treatment of the subject. This mode of political action has been of demonstrable importance in the past hundred years and more, yet there has been far too little serious study of many of its aspects. A focus on this phenomenon and its roles in international politics challenges the view that only the exercise of power by military means can bring about fundamental changes in authoritarian societies. The project will explore this phenomenon in a rigorous and open-minded way, asking a number of hard questions that are often avoided, and exploring a wide range of relevant historical evidence. The resulting book and other output will have as an aim to assist a better understanding of civil resistance on the part of governments, activists, members of the public, and scholars. They may therefore have significance for future action as well as for understanding the past and present.
The conference, attendance at which is by invitation only, will consist mainly of academics and analysts plus some practitioners who have been involved in particular campaigns of civil resistance. On the basis of prepared papers, it will look at some general themes, and also at a large number of cases. The cases considered will include, but not be limited to, the Indian independence struggle to 1947; the US civil rights movement in the 1960s; resistance to the Greek colonels’ regime 1967-73; the Iranian resistance in 1979; the overthrow of President Marcos in the Philippines in 1986; opposition activity in South Africa contributing to the end of the apartheid regime; many examples of civil resistance in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, culminating in the regime changes of 1989-91; Serbian opposition activities culminating in the fall of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000; the ‘rose revolution’ in Georgia in 2003; the ‘orange revolution’ in Ukraine in 2004-05; and events in Kyrgyzstan in 2005. It will also examine a number of apparent failures such as the Czechoslovak resistance in 1968; the resistance to Noriega in Panama in 1989; the events leading to the Tienanmen Square massacre in 1989 in China; and the resistance in Kosovo before the 1999 war. It may also include certain cases that are ongoing, such as Iran or Burma, although these can obviously not be studied in the same way.

2. COMMON QUESTIONS IN CASE STUDIES
The project, and its conference, will explore a wide range of issues relating to the role of civil resistance in international politics. Some common questions would be addressed in the case studies and also in some thematic papers:

1. Were the reasons for the use of non-violent methods derived from an absolute rejection of all political violence, or from more particular strategic, moral, cultural and other considerations?

2. To the extent that a non-violent movement was able to operate effectively, was this in part due to particular favourable circumstances in the overall power situation, both domestic and international?

3. Has civil resistance demonstrated a particular value as one instrument for challenging fraudulent election processes and ensuring a free and fair outcome?

4. Can an international legal/normative regime provide a favourable background for civil resistance?

5. To what extent did the non-violent movement succeed in undermining, or threatening to undermine, the adversary’s sources of power and legitimacy?

6. Was any force or violence used alongside non-violent methods, and if so what were its effects?

7. What has been the role of external actors of all kinds (government, quasi-non-governmental organisations, NGOs, diasporas) in assisting or attempting to influence civil resistance in this country?

8. Is there evidence of agents provocateurs being sent in by the state, or of other efforts to discredit the movement by depicting it as violent?

9. How has the development of technologies, especially information technology (e.g. fax, email, internet), affected the capacities of civil resistance?

10. Was there any implicit or explicit threat of a future use of force or violence to carry forward the non-violent movement’s cause if the movement did not achieve a degree of success, or if extreme repression was used against it?

11. If there was such a threat, was it from the leaders of the movement itself, from potential allies among its ‘constituency’ of support, or from outside forces such as, for example, the governments of neighbouring states or international bodies?

12. In cases where outside governments or organizations supported the movement, did they understand and respect the reasons for avoiding the use of force or violence? Should rules be established regarding the character and extent of such external support?

13. Was civil resistance in one country instigated or assisted by another state as a mere instrument for pursuing its own ends or embarrassing an adversary? If accusations of this kind were made, did they have any credibility?

14. Overall, can the movement be viewed as a success or failure? How adequately do these labels reflect outcomes that may be highly ambiguous, especially with the benefit of hindsight?

15. In what time-frame should the effectiveness of civil resistance be judged?

16. If they subsequently entered into government, did the leaders and exponents of civil resistance show any distinctive approach to the management and use of military and police power by their state?

17. Is there a connection between the practice of civil resistance and liberal outcomes? If yes, what is the nature of that connection, and what lessons might be learned?