Pramukh Bhushan #9: Which Is More Effective: Violence or Nonviolence?
Merriam-Webster defines a protest as “something said or done that shows disagreement (“protest,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary). Throughout history, there have been both violent and non-violent protests that have accomplished incredible feats. Some of the most famous violent protests include the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution—both of which have succeeded and significantly impacted the world. However, people are often bewildered by the effectiveness of just using one's voice to seek change.
Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist who collected data on all major violent and nonviolent campaigns involving overthrowing a government from 1900 to 2006, explained that violent attempts had a success rate of 30% with a failure rate of 70% (Fisher). In comparison, non-violent movements had a success rate of above 50%, a failure rate of just 20%, and a partial success rate of 30% (Fisher). In addition to the low failure rates, Chenoweth also found that non-violent campaigns are “becoming increasingly successful” (Fisher).
Although historical data shows that peaceful protests prosper, most people wonder how nonviolence is logically more effective than using force. The biggest reason violent demonstrations are less practical is that it causes fear—this fear authorizes governments to use their military or police force to crush the uprising. In most circumstances, these rallies for a revolution cannot keep up with the military might of their home countries. Increasing violence can villanize the group, diminishing the necessary public support for their cause. Moreover, public support is vital to a revolution as no campaign from 1900 to 2006 failed when they had sustained support of “3.5% of the population” (Fisher). Similarly, research shows that nonviolent movements are more likely to stay in power as they often have democratic elections.
The Salt March in India, the 1913 Suffrage Parade, and the Civil Rights Movement are famous non-violent protests. Similarly, all these movements were able to drive public support from laymen and people in power. Perhaps language is powerful because it can touch the heart and minds of leaders rather than immediately seeing them as a threat. Thus, when large groups of people use their voices, language is more powerful and efficient than weapons.
Sources:
https://www.wikihow.com/Cite-a-Dictionary-Meaning-in-MLA
https://www.history.co.uk/article/gandhis-salt-march-the-tax-protest-that-changed-indian-history
Hey Pramukh, your percentages for the effectiveness of nonviolent action do not add up, but either way it is really interesting to see how nonviolent action is generally more effective. I think the effectiveness of nonviolent versus violent action also depends on who is the one protesting as well, and that made me wonder what form of protest our own government exercises more regularly. Obviously with COVID-19 and mask mandates, there has been both violent and nonviolent action to get people to wear masks, but it honestly seems neither is effective. We may need to resort to finding a new tactic of protesting.
ReplyDeleteHey Pramukh, I think it is a really insightful and relevant point of yours about how simple military might is often not enough or accessible to attack those in power. Approaching some situations with peace makes nonviolent revolutions much less likely to be crushed easily, but I also think that the progress that these kind of approaches aim for is also significantly slower. I think in addition to just analyzing the raw percentages of successes and failures, I would be interested to see how the different types of protests differ in the amount of time that they take to approach their goals. Either way, nonviolent marches are usually much more efficient in gaining power through that in majorities, but in some cases against extremely dictatorial and totalitarian governments, there is no choice but to use violence.
ReplyDeleteHi Pramukh! I can understand why nonviolent protests and revolutions do prove more effective. The most relevant example I can think of is between my parents and I. If I were unsatisfied with something, the most effective way for me to express my opinions would be nonviolently. Same goes for the other small issues in life. However, in the US, a lot of protests have become quite violent. Recently, there have been lots of burglary, break-ins, and even murders at protests.
ReplyDeleteHey Pramukh! It's crazy how nonviolent actions have a greater impact as compared to violent actions. When you think about it, you would think that people get scared and do what you want if you were being violent which would most certainly increase the likelihood of it working in your favor. According to statistics though, which although doesn’t add up, it seems about right in this way. At the end of the day, nonviolent actions or protests do always end up working more in your favor as it's the most realistic way to do it as well as the most reasonable. Honestly, although a lot of protests do start off nonviolent, recent ones have been getting out of hand and turning into violent ones which at the end of the day, isn’t safe.
ReplyDeleteHi Pramukh! This makes me think of Riddhika's blog post on empathy. Of course utilizing fear to dominate can serve its purpose, but this is driven by one sided intentions, fueled by hate and bitterness. In showing empathy, there is a mutual understanding and a better relationship established. As stated in Riddhika's post, a person would be much more inclined to complete a task when empathy from the other side is shown. I think peace is much more effective in the long term.
ReplyDeleteHi Pramukh, the fact that peaceful protests are more effective than violent protests is really interesting. It goes to show that modern change should be driven by peaceful protests and rallies rather than violent ones— on both sides of the aisle. This reminds me of the BLM protests, where pundits attempted to paint them as violent to discredit the movement, even though just a few people were violent, dislocated from the whole.
ReplyDeleteHi Pramukh! Honestly, I never understood why peaceful protests are more effective than violent ones. I mean, being forceful should break the wall and achieve success, theoretically, right? But your blog connects all the pieces, and I agree that public support is super important for garnering success in the long term. Fear-mongering, although somewhat effective in scaring the enemy, distances and villainizes the violent entity. Language and attitude really matter in gaining the heart and support of someone.
ReplyDeleteHello Pramukh,
ReplyDeleteBecause of language and intellectual barriers, communication is easily distorted. It is difficult to fight someone with lack of respect or empathy towards others with words. However, communication can still be more effective than violence when solving disputes, or at least less damaging to the economy. No one should ever resort to violence without weighing the pros and cons of non-violence as well. In the future, hopefully communication amongst people from all over the world will improve and more conflicts can be solved with conversation.
Hi Pramukh, I think fear and anger can only convince people to become more entrenched in their own beliefs. Peaceful protests, on the other hand, may actually help people consider a belief that is not their own. Maybe non-violent methods weaken others over time and that’s why they have been successful. It seems like a part of being human means it is not logical to use weapons against other people who have no power/no weapons. It is much harder to use weapons against such defenseless people than it is to quickly shut down a violent protest, because a group that utilizes weapons against a peaceful protest will definitely be criticized for being heartless and inhumane.
ReplyDelete