Very interesting article and I don't think there is a clear and obvious answer as to which type of revolution works better as examples vary from country to country and at different points in history.

Examples cited early in the article of recent successes of non-violent revolution are not perfect:

Serbia- This non-violent revolt only succeeded after years of military defeats for Milosevic and Serbia and came right on the heels of the NATO bombing campaign. Even though the revolution itself was non-violent it was preceded by much violence and military disintegration.

Lebanon- This worked in large part due to international pressure (a point I think overlooked in the article, usually international sympathy would be stronger towards non violent revolution over the violent kind). The aftermath though was years of assassinations and bombings and now Hizb Allah is leading the government (allied to Syria who were ousted by the Cedar Revolution) and they are armed, showing that non-violence only went so far.

Nepal- Forgot about the civil war there for 10 years prior?

Madagasgar- I had to look this one up, but apparently there were street clashes.

The examples of violent revolutions leading to oppressive governments following them (France, Cuba, Russia) is true; but there are also examples of violent revolutions bringing about democracy: The United States.

Also there is a history of non-violent revolutions faling miserably as well: The Green Movement in Iran in 2009, The Burmese Saffron Revolution in 2007 and the Bahrain uprising this year.

It comes down to the fact that I don't think either method is necessarily more successful than the other, there are examples of failures and successes for both. In this day and age the balance of power between the revolutionaries and the government isn't simply down to the battlefield, the hears and minds of the people and disruption of society, but also for world opinion which at times proves a decisive factor (look at 2005 Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and to a great extent in Egypt in 2011).

If Mubarak wasn't obligated to his western allies and if the world hadn't been watching the revolution daily, things might have gotten a lot bloodier and uglier there with the police and government thugs (like what's going on in Syria with not as much coverage).

Also it comes down to the character of the ruler(s), the junta in Burma even went so far as to attack peaceful monks (many other regimes would not have gone as far), Qaddafi was killing protesters en masse in the streets before the rebels took up arms, he was using military equipment against them before the NATO intervention or arming of the fighters of the revolution. In Syria, the regime is going a lot further than the regime did in Egypt or even in Yemen.

So I think it's on a case by case basis that revolutions should be judged and based on the outcomes and results. As for the claim that non-violent revolutions are more moral that is (like a lot of moral questions) a really grey area. Is it really immoral to defend yourself from being killed by picking up arms and shooting back? In my opinion it is not, maybe in a pacisift opinion it is immoral, but I think self defense is an extremely natural reaction to being attacked by police or military force.

Whether to wage a non-violent or violent struggle against tyranny depends on the circumstances. Here in the Philippines, my people succeeded in forcing Marcos out of power through prayer, support from the military, and the People Power Revolution. And, contrary to the author's claim, the Philippines managed to reconsolidate democracy. Prior to Marcos's martial law, the Philippines had a relatively vibrant and working democracy. The political culture was not alien to democracy and was able to strengthen democracy after its restoration in 1986. The coup plots that followed, the successful Ramos Presidency, the short-lived Estrada Presidency, and the tumultous but economically successful Arroyo Presidency did not weaken Philippine democracy but actually STRENGHTENED it. Democracy is not a walk in the park. It requires participation, responsibility, patience, pluralism, vigilance, and perseverance. Most Filipinos did not lose support for democracy; they actually want to develop it further.

While it is a victory for many that Lipya is free of its regime, it will take months and even years to rebuild into the country everyone wants it to be, it will take a lifetime for the scars to go for what civilians have had to witness throughout this civil war from the Quadaffi's militants using their martial arts styles and guns on innocent people and journalists.

Nice article, thanks for the information. rental mobil

Nonviolence can not work against a ruthless dictatorship that is willing to use any means to suppress the opposition.

Jews could NOT have won against Hitler’s ruthless regime by nonviolent resistance.

Dalai Lama’s Tibetans are destined to be assimilated in Chinese culture with Communist Party’s rule just as American Indians were under Whiteman‘s rule.

Gandhi’s nonviolent movement did NOT win India independence. It was the election of a sympathetic warden in British elections of 1945 that brought release of India from a British jail for good behavior. If it were Hitler, Gandhi would have been shot dead in a second and that would have been the end of his nonviolent movement in India.

I agree with Truth85 that many of the examples are questionable. South Africa's revolution was definitely violent. Guerrilla wars were launched from man "front line" states. White civilians were targets of terror. It was not in any way non-violent.

Mandela and others in the ANC were initially committed to non-violence. They were charged with treason but acquitted. Mandela then founded the armed wing of the ANC (the Spear of the Nation) in 1961 and led bombing campaigns. The Spear of the Nation continued to conduct sabotage and terror attacks, including a land mine campaign, through the 1980s.

South African's revolution was know for "necklacing", where a suspected informer had a tire filled with gasoline put around his or her chest, and then the gasoline was lit, burning the suspected informer to death. It was a painful and lurid means of keeping the loyalty of people during the revolution.

Killing of suspected informers also occurred during the first Intifada. I suspect that summary executions of suspected informers is a common feature of "non-violent" revolutions.

This article is a very good demonstration of the oxymoron "political science". While the conclusion may be quite correct, the writer starts from that point and then piles annecdotes together to substantiate their case. A more systematic treatment of the data available would probably lead to rather more nuanced conclusions.

It would be nice if non violent methods worked consistently, but much depends on the character of the regime. If you read the FP article on rethinking the fall of the Soviet Union the point made is that Gorbachev made the decision to act morally and not crush the revolution. The Chinese Communists weren't so worried about ethics.

Try a non violent protest today in North Korea.

And as noted previously the Rosenstrassa event wasn't what it seemed.

This article isn't a real analysis but simply an argument for an ideal glossing over why one event failed and another succeeds.

It would have served the readers better (not wasting our precocious time) if it were a real analysis of how and when different types of protest succeed. Maybe the editors could have a little conference on article quality?

What about Bahrain? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZyYbNhH-Qo

Should everyone line up so they can be killed quicker?

What about Tienanmen Square?

What about America? When has it worked here?

The civil rights movement barely worked.

I still wonder if this would even apply to a nation that has an elected head of state like Mexico, because it shares the trappings of a nation that has a human rights problem and other social ills, but is not in the totalitarianism spectrum that would encourage massive protest. They don't have a dictatorship, but an ineffective government that cannot even provide security to society and I doubt if it's going to engage in large scale violence like some regimes have.

In general, there are exceptions that may not make nonviolent resistance relevent such as the comment that Lizardo has written. It really depends on the nature of the government in general and other factors that are unique to each individual country.

"In case you've been a part of history, these events are something that you will proudly tell your child or your grandchild."

While I would not get involved, it must be easier to be proud when you are not a killer, as soldiers by definition are.

JH

Time and again it has been proved that non-violent resistance of the tyrannical governments succeeds in its cause, be it in Egypt or Chile. The natural anti inflammatory nature of the Non-violent resistance makes it the most peaceful and one of the widely-accepted forms of rebellion in vogue. People might get attracted to the guerilla warfare that yields instant results; nevertheless, the efforts of non-violent rebellion reach their fruition in a slow and steady manner making way for an ever-lasting peace that will be credited with accolades the world over. More media exposure and people’s support should be extended to this form of protest to prevent bloodshed and ensure peace.

A very interesting piece. I had a good read through. There are some interesting points made regarding Resisting the temptation to take up arms against a dictator. I agree with many of the points. Thanks for writing the article for us to read and debate. All the best, Molly.

In the current geopolitical moment, it may seem hard to argue that a nonviolent uprising is a better tool for uprooting a dictator than the violent kind. Armed rebels, backed by NATO air power, are on the verge of ending four decades of despotic rule by Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya. Meanwhile to the east, Syria's Bashar al-Assad has killed with impunity more than 2,200 members of a mostly nonviolent resistance to his family's long-lived rule.
(bodybuildingguide, bacterialvaginosissymptoms hemroidstreatment, coffeetableplans, prematureejaculationexercises, tinnitusremedies, windturbinesforthehome, woodworkingideas, coffeemakersratings/ fibroidsinuterussymptoms)

Armed rebels, backed by NATO air power, are on the verge of ending four decades of despotic rule by Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya. Meanwhile to the east, Syria's Bashar al-Assad has killed with impunity more than 2,200 members of a mostly nonviolent resistance to his family's long-lived rule ( blackanddeckertools, blancokitchensinks, brauncoffeegrinder, braucoffeemakers, bunncoffeemakersparts, granitecompositesinks, italiancoffeemachines, krupscoffeegrinder, freeonlinediets, glidersfornursery, indonesianews)

And Palestinian land will shrink, suicide bombers will respond, rockets will be launched and Israelis killed. Now Hezbollah and Sunnis have started up again in Lebanon. And Iran is powering up its nuclear capacity. Israel may feel impelled to react at some point if it calculates either Lebanon or Iran needs to be nipped in the bud. Add Syria to the toxic mix in Lebanon; and if things boil over there then Palestine will be left to sit and stew on the perennial international back burner. Hope, at this point, is not even a diamond in the rough. porno porno porno porno sikiş web tasarım

Thank goodness it is now near an end, the rebels have fought back with their bb gun shop arms. This has gone on for far too long, lets hope Gaddafi gets what he deserves. My products: caldaie vaillant.

Resisting the temptation to take up arms against a dictator isn't just the moral thing to do -- it's also the most effective way to win. In the current geopolitical moment, it may seem hard to argue that a nonviolent uprising is a better tool for uprooting a dictator than the violent kind. Armed rebels, backed by NATO air power, are on the verge of ending four decades of despotic rule by Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya. Meanwhile to the east, Syria's Bashar al-Assad has killed with impunity more than 2,200 members of a mostly nonviolen discovering career in psychology Nonviolence can not work against a ruthless dictatorship that is willing to use any means to suppress the opposition. Jews could NOT have won against Hitler’s ruthless regime by nonviolent resistance. Dalai Lama’s Tibetans are destined to be assimilated in Chinese culture with Communist Party’s rule just as American Indians were under Whiteman‘s rule. Gandhi’s nonviolent movement did NOT win India.