Workshops
Global Media, Non-Violent Power and Democratic Change
 Organized by the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
11 December, 2003.
This workshop examined how non-violent struggles have achieved independence or liberation from dictators and oppressive regimes, and how this can happen today more effectively than through violence or terror. The workshop also explored ways in which media can more accurately report on conflicts and the shifting currents of power, and how the new electronic media may transform the way that democracy and
human rights are achieved.
Content
Programme
1. Battling for democracy: The impact of civilian-based struggle
Moderator:
Panel:
- Jack DuVall, ICNC
- Mkhuseli Jack
- Kurt Schock, Rutgers University
2. The power of visibility: The impact of media coverage
Moderator:
Panel:
-
Ismael Zayer, Al-Sabah
-
Slobodan Djinovic, Mediaworks
-
Kurt Schock
3. Who's changing the world? The impact of New Media
Moderator:
Panel:
-
Steve York
-
John Fox, I-Media
-
Slobodan Djinovic
^top
Report
by Shaazka Beyerle, ICNC
The struggle for democracy is worldwide. In the 20th century most of this liberation has been brought about by indigenous political forces, without violent revolution, war or terror, for example : Philippines/"people power"; Chile/1980s; South Africa/1980s-1990s ; fall of communist regimes in Poland, Eastern Europe, and Mongolia, 1989-90; Serbia, 2000. All of these regimes used repressive violence against their people, including torture, disappearances and assassinations, to discourage or destroy their political opponents - but they were all toppled by forces that did not use similarly violent methods.
These democratic transformations occurred through the strategic use of non-violent civilian-based struggle. The choice of non-violent action is taken for strategic reasons, and it involves force, applied through strikes, boycotts, refusal to pay taxes or fees, non-lethal sabotage, and other actions around a strategy that shatter a regime's ability to maintain control and power.
Strategic non-violent conflict is self-liberation. Jack DUVALL, Director of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict and Co-Author, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Change, discussed how any long-term solution to the present global crisis of political violence and terror needs to recognize and support indigenous civilian-led non-violent movements. Terrorism, indeed all political violence, is driven in part by opposition to oppression, and cannot be sustained without that grievance to support its recruiting. Terrorists, it should be remembered, are also given safe haven and help by authoritarian rulers. Thus, political oppression is at the heart of the global crisis of violence, and as history has proven, oppressive and violent regimes can be removed without violent counterforce - by the very people who are oppressed using another form of power, strategic non-violent resistance.
Mkhuseli JACK, one of the leaders of the South African anti-apartheid movement, presented a first-hand analysis of how strategic non-violent action attacked and brought down the apartheid regime. When resistance took the form of armed struggle, as was the case during the 1960s, the apartheid regime used tough and ruthless measures to extinguish it. Up until the mid 1970s, it maintained the upper hand, having successfully frightened the broader black population, and forged the support of virtually the entire white population during a time of economic prosperity.
In 1983 the United Democratic Front (UDF) was formed to consolidate the various mass non-violent actions under way since 1976, organized workers, students and civic organizations. Two years of intensive planning and preparation went into the highly successful Port Elizabeth boycott of white businesses. Jack stated that the objectives of the non-violent actions were to engage and empower wide swathes of the black population, and to bring the struggle to each and every white home. The strategy was to create cracks within the apartheid regime by attacking its greatest sources of support, the white population generally and white businesses in particular. As the white population began to have doubts about the regime, they began to criticize some of its policies. While more and more questions were being asked, there was an absence of credible answers, which further undermined support for the regime. White academics, intellectuals, church leaders and cultural groups began to talk directly to black leaders to map out a permanent solution to the apartheid system.
Misconceptions about non-violent conflict impact the media. Kurt SCHOCK, Associate Professor at Rutgers University, outlined two key consequences: non-violent struggles may not be adequately covered or accurately covered. When non-violent action is not adequately covered in the media, then it is not viewed as being important or significant. When non-violent action is not accurately covered, then misconceptions about it are perpetuated.
Common misconceptions include:
1. Nonviolence versus non-violent action - Non-violent action is a method of struggle and a pragmatic tool to fight for justice, human rights and democracy against an opponent. “Nonviolence” is a lifestyle or a set of principles and beliefs.
2. Action versus passivity - Non-violent action is not inactive, submissive, or “passive resistance.”
3. Conflict versus resolution – Non-violent action is not a form of conflict rather than negotiation, compromise or conflict resolution. Negotiation or compromise may or may not accompany non-violent struggles, just as they can accompany violent struggles.
4. Impact of repression – The success of non-violent action is not a function of the degree to which the opponent responds with violent repression. The level of repression can shape struggles but it is not the sole determinant of their outcome.
5. Conversion versus coercion – Success is not dependent on the “conversion” of the opponent to the movement’s aims or grievances. Non-violent action is a form of coercion that undermines the opponent’s power.
6. Violent crackdowns mean failure – A violent response or crackdown by the opponent does not indicate that non-violent action has failed. In fact, it is a sign that the opponent is being seriously challenged. Mkhuseli Jack recalled that when the apartheid regime violently cracked down on the non-violent movement following the Port Elizabeth boycott, he knew his side was going to win.
7. Charismatic leader – Successful non-violent struggles do not need charismatic leaders. While some campaigns have had such leaders, such as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, others have not.
There are often signs, way before a non-violent movement is on the brink of success, to spot its early stages, growth and cumulative impact on a regime or opponent. Shaazka BEYERLE, Associate Director of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, identified eight tips to identify strategic non-violent action.
They are as follows:
1. Variety – a variety of actions or tactics occur. There are 198 non-violent actions summarized by Dr. Gene Sharp, President of the Albert Einstein Institute at Harvard University.
2. Geographical dispersion – Non-violent actions occur in many parts or all across the country or place.
3. Sequencing – Non-violent actions occur systematically, are coordinated and reinforcing of one another, and evolve from low risk to high risk over time.
4. Population diversity – A wide range of the population, for example urban and rural, young and old, men and women, working and middle classes, civil society, are participating in non-violent action.
5. Unity - Different parts of opposition come together who previously did not cooperate with one another.
6. Visible movement – The emergence of a new entity that represents the non-violent struggle.
7. Vision – The objectives of the non-violent movement are clearly articulated, appeal to a broad base of the population, and provide a picture of what life will be like after success.
8. Opponent/regime crackdown – The adversary cracks down on the non-violent movement. Rather than being a sign of failure, crackdowns indicate that the movement is having success and becoming a threat to the opponent’s power and control.
Non-violent struggles for democracy and human rights are presently under way around the world. Award-winning filmmaker, Steve YORK, who has chronicled successful non-violent struggles in the documentary films, A Force More Powerful, and Bringing Down a Dictator, identified three “hot” spots: Iran, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.
In the case of Iran, the situation is ripe for a non-violent movement to develop, as frequent student protests are spreading around the country and are attracting a broad spectrum of the population. What is presently lacking is an articulated vision for the movement that has mass appeal, and clear political goals that guide a coherent strategy using non-violent tactics that attack and weaken the regime’s sources of power, particularly its military defenders.
A non-violent struggle is already under way in Zimbabwe. Begun in earnest over a year ago, both the political opposition, headed by Morgan Tsvangerai and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and civil society are vigorously using non-violent actions against Robert Mugabe. The key weakness thus far is that MDC and civil society opposition have not joined forces and worked in a coordinated manner.
In some cases, a non-violent movement springs forth not to achieve democracy but to preserve it and to improve the quality of life of a population. Such is the case in Venezuela. In the wake of protests and strikes mostly associated with the middle class and a 48-hour military coup in 2002, a new, more broadly based movement has emerged that includes ever-growing numbers of the working class and poor. They are using non-violent struggle to work within political and social institutions to hold a referendum on the perceived authoritarian rule, and economic and social policies of the democratically elected President, Hugo Chavez.
Steadily expanding worldwide computer access offers unparalleled opportunities for the use of information technology as educational and training resources. Information technology, along with new media, are the latest fronts for the development of tools and communication outlets for non-violent movements.
The workshop was the site of the world premiere of the Force More Powerful Video Simulation Game, an initiative to be completed in 2005 by the International Center on Non-violent Conflict and York Zimmerman Inc. The game will simulate for a player(s) a range of situations, sequenced in a realistic progression, which require him or her to make choices in a virtual non-violent campaign.
When it came time to get its message across to an entire population and the world beyond, as well as to create political space in a closed environment stifled by censorship and oppression, the young students of Serbia’s OTPOR (Serbian for resistance) did what came naturally – they turned on their computers and connected to the Internet. Slobodan DJINOVIC, a key leader of OTPOR and presently the founder and President of Mediaworks, an IT company, outlined from first-hand experience, how the students effectively used information technology in their non-violent resistance against Slobodan Milosevic.
OTPOR members used coded short-text messaging for communication and coordination of non-violent actions. They launched and maintained a website to allow contact within Serbia, but as importantly, to allow communication with the international media and the world’s democracies.
On the occasions when Milosevic allowed foreign journalists into the country, they did not have freedom of movement or association within Serbia. However, they were often barred or were based in Budapest. As a result, OTPOR used the Internet to provide real-time information and images to the media. When Milosevic took control of the main television and radio stations, the famous B-52 radio station was able to continue broadcasting through the Internet. It became a vital source of information for civilians.
Independent television, either through regular broadcast channels or via satellite, is another medium through which non-violent movements can break the stranglehold of state-controlled media. John FOX, an authority on independent electronic media in state-controlled systems and President of I-Media, shared his first-hand expertise on how European and American agencies and democracy institutions provided broadcasting assistance and an actual television transmitter to the Serbian opposition to provide an alternative outlet to Milosevic’s takeover and control of the airwaves. The Serbian case presents a powerful example of international collaboration with a democratic, non-violent movement – that can serve as a practical example for international aid to other non-violent struggles around the world.
Slobodan Djinovic pointed out that one factor for the recent November 2003 success of the Georgian non-violent struggle against President Edouard Shevardnadze’s increasingly authoritarian and deeply corrupt government, was the fact that the opposition had access to the national media through independent broadcasting. In fact, Steve York’s film, Bringing Down a Dictator, an excerpt of which was screened during the workshop, is the unnamed film cited in the November 25 Washington Post article "Tbilisi’s ‘Revolution of Roses’ Mentored by Serbian Activists” that electrified the Georgian opposition and civilians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A13145-2003Nov25.html).
The impact of airing Bringing Down a Dictator further illustrates the power of visual presentation to ignite the “strategic” imagination of populations suffering under failed or oppressive governments. Members of the Georgian opposition told the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict that the film was not only an inspiration to them and hundred of thousands of Georgians, it was also a valuable learning tool for them to plan their non-violent movement.
^top
Conclusions
Berel RODAL summarized the principal conclusions of the workshop and discussion:
Non-violent civilian-based movements have been a principal force in dissolving oppression and producing human rights and democracy over the past 20 years and more. Since oppression is the main grievance of those who use political violence, understanding and supporting non-violent struggle is a vital part of the global effort against oppression, deadly violence, and terrorism.
Information and communication technology, and broadcast media, have enormous influence on the ability of non-violent movements to obtain recognition and become internally organized. Global media play a central and unique role in enabling human rights and democracy to be won by all peoples.
Following discussion with workshop participants, it was recommended that:
- International norms recognize, protect, and promote a right of digital assembly worldwide.
- The international community provide assistance to create and sustain independent communications and electronic media capacities for non-violent movements.
In relation to global media:
- Broadcast news stories on non-violent struggles be more frequently and deeply reported, and media organizations recognize and promote the right of digital assembly worldwide.
- Acts of repression against non-violent movements be given more vigilant coverage.
Notes for a Broadcasters' Action Plan
- More coverage should be given to non-violent struggles and their repression by governments, since the efficiency of non-violence in bringing about social and political change rests largely on public opinion.
- ICT and media capacity should be provided for non-violent movements.
^top
Resources
^top
|
