Civil Resistance and Power politics

Project Quetions:

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?