ETHNIC CONFLICT AND

POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Non-Violent Strategies for Change

Lecture Outline
 Defining ‘Ethnic Conflict’
 What is Non-Violent Action?
 Categories of non-violent action
 Principled vs. pragmatic non-violence
 Things to bear in mind
 Famous Practitioners
 Gandhi
 Martin Luther King, Jr.
 Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance
 Can Non-Violent Action Bring About Change?
 Why civil resistance works
 Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict
 Summary
Defining ‘Ethnic Conflict’
 Ethnic conflicts are conflicts ‘in which the goals of at least
one conflict party are defined in (exclusively) ethnic terms,
and in which the primary fault line of confrontation is one of
ethnic distinctions’ (Wolff 2007: 2).

 However we can distinguish between violent and non-violent

ethnic conflict (Varshney 2007) and the latter can be further
distinguished into:
 institutionalised forms of ethnic protest (e.g. in the context of
electoral politics) and
 Non-violent actions outside of (formally) institutionalised
political channels [this is what we are interested in today].
What is Non-Violent Action?
 Nonviolent strategies for
change include strikes,
boycotts, sit-ins, protests,
marches, petitions, walk-outs,
law breaking, mock funerals....

2003 protests in London against the

Gandhi on the Salt March 1930 invasion of Iraq
What is Non-Violent Action? (2)

 ‘Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used

to wage conflict through social, psychological,
economic, and political means without the threat or use
of violence’ (Stephan and Chenoweth 2008: 7).

 Defining features of nonviolent action (Schock 2005):

1) Does not involve physical violence or the threat of physical
violence against human beings;
2) Involves activity in the collective pursuit of social or political
objectives;
3) Is non-institutional and indeterminate.
What is Non-Violent Action? (3)
Categories of non-violent action (Sharp 1973)

 methods of protest and persuasion: largely symbolic,

intended to persuade the opponent or to produce awareness of
injustices and the extent of dissent (e.g. protests, marches, mock
funerals);
methods of non-cooperation: intended to undermine the
power, resources and legitimacy of the government (e.g. strikes,
economic boycotts, acts of civil disobedience);
 methods of non-violent intervention: intended to directly
disrupt operations that support the status quo or to develop
preferred alternatives (e.g. sit-ins, sabotage, creating parallel
institutions).
What is Non-Violent Action? (4)
Principled vs. pragmatic non-violence

principled non-violence: ‘grounded in religious and ethically

based injunctions against violence’ (Stephan and Chenoweth
2008: 10); non-violence as a way of life and moral imperative;
central aim is the conversion of the opponent in order to bring
about change (e.g. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.);

pragmatic non-violence: non-violence as most effective

method available in the given circumstances; morality or beliefs
not central; main aim is defeat of opponent in order to bring
about change; strategic rather than principled (violent protest
shifts attention away from what is under protest and towards the
violent act).
What is Non-Violent Action? (5)
Things to bear in mind

Non-violent action is not the same as pacifism (Zunes

1)
1994): pacifism does not necessarily involve political action
nor is everyone who uses non-violent strategies for change a
pacifist.

Violent and non-violent strategies for change can and

2)
frequently do co-exist.

‘Nonviolent struggle does not mean the absence of

3)
violence’ (Schock 2005: 8): governments may respond with
violence to non-violent action.
Famous Practitioners
Gandhi
 Mohandas Gandhi used mass non-violent resistance
to change racist anti-Indian laws in South Africa and
then to try to bring down British colonialism in India.

 By 1907 in South Africa had formulated method

known as satyagraha (‘truth-force’): militant form of
non-violent resistance. Gandhi and followers accepted
fines, jail sentences and physical abuse.
Famous Practitioners (2)
Gandhi
 1915 Gandhi returned to India. Led national
resistance movement 1920-22 using non-violent non-
cooperation with British colonizers. Imprisoned.
1930-31 salt campaign, acted against oppressive salt
laws. Imprisoned. 1942-44 Quit India campaign.

India granted independence 1947. Gandhi

assassinated in 1948 by Hindu extremist objecting to
his call for Hindu-Muslim unity.
Famous Practitioners (3)
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mid-1950s to mid-1960s Black civil rights campaign in
America; most visible leader Martin Luther King, Jr.
(assassinated 1968).
 Distinguished between just and unjust laws; asserted
commitment to rule of law in general but argued unjust law
has no moral requirement to be followed (moral imperative
to change unjust laws).
 Distinction between just and unjust laws based on
Christian morality; made reference to natural law and
thoughts of St Thomas Aquinas.
Famous Practitioners (4)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

‘I submit that an individual who breaks a
law that conscience tells him is unjust, and
willingly accepts the penalty by staying in
jail to arouse the conscience of the
community over its injustice, is in reality
expressing the very highest respect for law.’
(King, ‘Letter from Birmingham City Jail’, reproduced in Bedau 1991.)
Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent
Resistance
1) Moral obligation (Sharp 1963), violence ‘is in itself
an evil’ (Zinn 2003);

2) Violence is incompatible with civil disobedience as

a form of public, political address within limits of
overall adherence to law (Rawls 1971);

3) Non-violence is more desirable than violence as a

means, since one of the principles guiding
advocates of civil disobedience may be the belief in
a non-violent world as an end goal (Zinn 2003);
Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance
(2)

4) One of the points of civil disobedience is to

communicate with and educate others; the use of
indiscriminate violence, particularly against people,
turns other people against the cause (Zinn 2003);

5) Violent conflict is too costly (Zunes 1994);

6) Unarmed methods are more effective (Zunes 1994).

Can Non-Violent Action Bring About
Change?
Sharp (1973): Yes:
 Political power is not monolithic, i.e. it is not fixed,

indestructible or self-perpetuating.
 Rather, political power is relational, i.e. it depends on the

cooperation and obedience of the people and is therefore

pluralistic and fragile.

 Reasons for obedience are variable and can be

strengthened or weakened. If a sufficient number of
people decide not to co-operate or obey, the government
will be unable to rule. In this manner, non-violent actions
can bring about change.
Source: Schock (2005: 4)
Can Non-Violent Action Bring About Change?
(2)

Why civil resistance works (Stephan and Chenoweth 2008)

 Commitment to non-violent methods
1) Enhances domestic legitimacy;
2) Encourages more broad-based participation in resistance;
3) Enhances international legitimacy.

 Regime violence against non-violent movements is

likely to backfire, showing the violent regime in such
a negative light that shifts of opinion occur (Sharp’s
‘political jiu-jitsu’).
Definition of jujitsu (also jiujitsu,
jujutsu)

 jujitsu: “A Japanese system of unarmed combat and

physical training.”

 Origin: Japanese jūjutsu, from jū ‘gentle’ + jutsu ‘skill.’

 Jujitsu – definition
 https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/jujitsu
 Example of jiu-jitsu political
reaction
 “Myanmar coup: Police fire rubber bullets as protesters defy
ban,” BBC News, 9 February, 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55991210

 “Myanmar coup: UN warns Myanmar junta of ‘severe

consequences’,” BBC News, 16 February, 2021. https://
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56074429

 “Could phone footage put Myanmar's leaders in jail?” (3-mins)

BBC News, 3 June, 2021.

 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-57332985
 Example of jiu-jitsu political
reaction
 “Prosecutors drop Troubles cases against ex-soldiers,”
BBC News, 2 July, 2021.
 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57694417

38 years after 1972, the UK government makes a formal apology:

 “Bloody Sunday – A Derry Diary – David Cameron's
Apology” ……..on 15 June, 2010.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=5e3VxZwjQ7g&ab_channel=BesomProductions
“Bloody Sunday: What happened on Sunday 30 January 1972?,” BBC
News, 14 March 2019
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-47433319
 Example of jiu-jitsu political
reaction
 “Bloody Sunday: PM David Cameron's full statement”
BBC News, 15 June, 2010.
https://www.bbc.com/news/10322295

 McDonald, Henry; and Owen Bowcott; and Hélène Mulholland,

“Bloody Sunday report: David Cameron apologises for
‘unjustifiable’ shootings,” The Guardian, 15 June, 2010.
 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-
report-saville-inquiry

 “Bloody Sunday: Soldier F faces murder charges”

BBC News, 14 March, 2019.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47540271
Problems for Situations of Ethnic
Conflict
 Most ideas about civil disobedience assume that
although disobeyer feels a particular law or policy is
unjust, they have faith in and accept the wider
structure of law and political system as a whole. Also
assumed that the society has a general shared
conception of justice (Rawls 1971).

 Problematic for ethno-national conflict situations:

legitimacy of overall political system is often what is
at issue in the conflict; such societies often have little
basis for a shared sense of justice.
Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict
(2)
 Acts of non-violent resistance are only purposeful if
authorities are open to some degree of persuasion and
change, otherwise tactics will fail and lead to
disillusionment and violence amongst followers
(MacFarlane 1971).
 Sri Lanka: mid-1950s to mid-1960s Tamil satyagraha
campaigns faced violent response and political and
legislative compromises with the government that were
achieved collapsed. Tamil agitation became increasingly
violent and the political goal more extreme.
 Northern Ireland: civil rights campaign from 1967;
demonstrations faced counter-demonstrations by loyalists
that soon turned violent. Helped feed support for violent
methods of political struggle.
Problems for Situations of Ethnic Conflict
(3)
 Civil disobedience theory is overwhelmingly directed
at political contexts of liberal democracy and the
practice is largely associated with political protest in
liberal democratic systems. Rawls’ theory of civil
disobedience is explicitly directed at situations of
‘near justice’, i.e. ‘legitimately established democratic
authority’.

 Not particularly helpful for many contexts of ethno-

national conflict and/or non-liberal democratic
systems.
Summary
 Not all ethnic conflicts are violent.

 Non-violent strategies for change pursue political

objectives outside of formally institutionalised
political channels and without the threat of physical
violence. They can be distinguished according to the
intentions, methods and motivations of those who
implement non-violent strategies.

 Practitioners of non-violent strategies have achieved

some significant political and social change.
Summary (2)
 Notion of a shared sense of justice underpinning protest is
problematic for ethnically divided societies.
 The problem of response may be a difficult one in
situations of ethnic conflict.
 Civil disobedience theory is largely directed at contexts of
liberal democracy – problematic for other contexts?
 Non-violent methods enhance domestic and international
legitimacy. Following pragmatic considerations, they are
preferable to violent strategies for change, as they can
potentially be more effective and less costly.