Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvel’s book “A Force More Powerful” is recommended for the bookshelf. In particular in the light of the current situation in Ukraine where the only solution being offered by western governments to is to send more weapons in the form of “military aid”, to an already dangerous conflict. Sensible solutions such as the Minks II agreement has unfortunately been ignored, since the war started, by the powers that be and their war propagandists.
A Force More Powerful describes several non violent movements during the 20th century that managed to convince oppressive governments to inact democratic reforms. There are interesting chapters on movements such as Poland’s Solidarity Union ; the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo who stood up against Argentina’s military Junta; the Germans resisting the Occupation of the Ruhr by France after WW1; the Danish underground movement that smuggled the Jewish minority to neutral Sweden; as well as the resistance movements that overthrew the governments in Mongolia, the Philippines, and El Salvador.
Throughout the 20th century, defenseless and weaker populations did manage to negotiate their oppressors out of power. The tactics aimed to break the system from the inside while simultaneously creating parallels governmental structures on the outside. Non cooperation frustrates the enforcers of the regime until they get to the point where they themselves no longer believe in their own oppressive narratives. The lesson is that organized non violent movements over long periods of time can enact permanent societal change and disarm even the most powerful armies.
With Russia’s war in Ukraine, perhaps it is tragic that the first non violent protests of the 20th century started when Father Gapon organized the workers strikes against Tsarist regime. The initial peaceful movement managed to get concessions from the autocratic ruler for democratic reforms, but as would be a common with many events in the last century, more violent and fanatical elements hijacked the peaceful protests, and in Russia’s case sadly lead to the rise of Lenin and later Stalin.
Gapon’s influenced Ghandi’s idea of Satyagraha, with his first laboratory for non violence being my home country South Africa. The Indian minority protested the segregation laws that were cultural norms long before Apartheid became the official law of the land. After leaving for India, Ghandi’s idea took root within the Indian Independence Movement. With Satyagraha in mind, he and others targeted series of oppressive British Laws, most notably the Indian population’s refusal to pay the salt tax. Indians from all castes could get behind the boycott that carried a powerful symbolic meaning - independence from empire.
As with all non violent movements not even India’s independence movement was spared from violence. But had the leaders of the independence movements not take a moral stance against violent elements within their own ranks, perhaps India’s independence would have been delayed as the British could have easily crushed the rebellion?
What impressed me about the book is how it provides an objective account of the movement against Apartheid in South Africa. Unknown to many outside of South Africa, Nelson Mandela initially did not renounce violence and he was responsible for putting the ANC on a militarized path when he founded uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK). This has always been a controversial topic within South Africa, because it shed light on the ANC’s Peoples War - an uncomfortable truth.
The Apartheid Regime with overwhelming intelligence services and military might crushed the violet elements within the movement and moved quickly to jail their leaders. They also managed to put down the Soweto Riots that were inspired by Steve Biko’s radial black consciousness ideology (in my view the ideological backing of today’s woke movement). The lesson again is that fanaticism and violence cannot be used as a means to respond to an opponent that is armed to the teeth.
What A Force More Powerful gets right is that the movement against Apartheid was often more disorganized than the “struggle heroes” pretend that it was, and that it consisted of a a combination of violent and non violent actions. After the ANC decided to renounce it’s armed struggle against the Apartheid Regime and with the collapse of the Soviet Union in sight, the Afrikaner state had no moral backfoot as there was no more "Rooi or “Swart Gevaar”. The regime was outmaneuvered during the negotiations as it could not survive without giving concessions. Religion also played an underappreciated role. The Union Democratic Front, the World Council of Churches and the Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s role is properly highlighted. Unfortunately it is largely neglected in the “struggle discourse” that is taught in modern South Africa.
By comparing South Africa’s independent movement to Palestine, Poland, Argentina, Chile, the Philippines, the Danish resistance and Mongolia, it becomes clear that religious leaders who take a moral stance against violence act as a powerful symbolism against autocratic rule. Often the liberation movements themselves are side-tracked by non violence as was the case with the ANC, the PLO and the communist movements in Chile and Argentina.
What is the lesson for Ukraine with this history in mind?
The West can either sent more weapons to the conflict and bet on the Ukrainians defeating the Russians at a cost of enormous human lives. But I find it difficult to believe that escalations against a nuclear powered state is a wise thing to do. Or perhaps they can work towards peace, take their losses and later negotiate the Russians out of power?
There are signs of non violence even within this brutal war. A few weeks ago, my wife and I paid a visit to the Ukrainian Church in Paris, and it struck me that they had prayers in both Russian and Ukrainian. Both sides wanting peace in what is ultimately a senseless geopolitical war that neither the average Ukrainian nor Russian wants.
The current strategy that the West is using in our approach towards Russia is only costing unneeded young lives and leading to a dangerous escalation between two nuclear powers.
Before his death and before the war broke out, the late Prof Steven Cohen argued that the missing word in our discourse about Russia is “Détente” - a policy of de-escalating tensions.
Perhaps we should give peace and not violence a try?