The Ambiguities of Gene Sharp and the Politics of Nonviolence

• In Event: Resistance, Disruption, Exit

Abstract

In recent years, the writings of Gene Sharp have drawn growing interest among scholars, journalists, and democratic activists worldwide. Inspired by Gandhi and King, Sharp outlines a theory of resistance to authoritarianism that promotes a multitude of tactics—all of them nonviolent—as a means of challenging the supposed omnipotence of authoritarian regimes and exploiting their internal weaknesses. As a result, the dissemination of his work has been said to influence activists in contexts as diverse as Serbia, Myanmar, and Egypt. However, this paper will argue that in its aim for generality and broad applicability, Sharp’s formalism threatens the viability of the entire project. First, it argues that Sharp’s inability to meaningfully distinguish between authoritarian, dictatorial, and totalitarian regimes leads him to draw inaccurate conclusions about the expected success of nonviolent resistance. Second, it suggests that Sharp’s relative disinterest in clarifying the normative merits and specifics of what he understands “democracy” to be results in a number of unexamined assumptions in his work. The latter, in turn, allow us to challenge Sharp on the grounds of his naiveté about the conceptual politics of liberal democracy and the ambiguities of post-Cold War democracy promotion. The paper concludes by weighing these shortcomings against Sharp’s contributions as a practical extension of liberal democratic theory.

Author

• Rafael Khachaturian, University of Pennsylvania