Violent and Nonviolent Resistance: Tactical Choices and Practical Consequences

Session Submission Type: Virtual Full Paper Panel

Session Description

In their campaigns to resist injustice and to bring down authoritarian leaders, activists and social movements may deploy a range of tactics, from non-violent strikes and protests, to unarmed mass attacks, to armed guerilla warfare. Scholarship on revolution, democratization, and mobilization has probed why certain activists opt for more or less violent tactics, and whether certain tactics are more likely to bring about their desired ends. For example, one influential argument is that nonviolent tactics of civil resistance are not only normatively preferable, but also more effective in forcing major political change and in constructing durable regimes because they are better able to draw in large numbers of everyday citizens (Chenoweth and Stephan 2011).

This panel brings together four papers that collectively explore the relationships between and the implications of violent and nonviolent strategies of resistance. Moreover, in line with the Annual Meeting’s theme of “Promoting Pluralism,” the papers are diverse in their approaches and methods; one is a normative and theoretical piece, one is a focused case study of a single movement, and two engage in comparative and cross-national analyses. However, they all bring unique and important perspectives to the central question of how movements’ choices regarding violent versus nonviolent tactics shape the type of political and social change they are able to bring about.

The first paper, by Kai Thaler (UC Santa Barbara), provides a theoretical critique of the thesis that nonviolent resistance is more effective than violent conflict. The paper cautions against assuming a priori that nonviolent movements have greater legitimacy than violent ones, arguing instead that these determinations emerge out of highly localized and contextually specific processes. Next, Devashree Gupta (Carleton) examines the often-ignored question of whether and how formerly violent movements may de-escalate their tactics and come to embrace nonviolence. Through a historical case study of the Irish Republican Army, she shows that such tactical de-escalation may undermine a movement’s strength if not handled deftly, potentially leading to an exodus of members and a weakening of the organization.

The second pair of papers examine cross-national patterns in conflict and regime-change, and, specifically, how the nature of conflict shapes subsequent regime formation and consolidation. Nancy Bermeo’s (Oxford) paper on democracy after civil war takes on the question of whether armed conflict is helpful or harmful to democratization. She argues that democracies that emerge from revolutionary civil wars have a “durability advantage” over democracies that emerge without militarized armed struggle. Finally, Killian Clarke (Harvard) explores the relationship between revolutionary violence and counterrevolution. He shows that revolutions involving armed violence and guerilla warfare, as opposed to those embracing largely nonviolent or unarmed tactics, tend to produce regimes that are subsequently more resistant to being overthrown by counterrevolutions.

These four papers will be discussed by two leading scholars in the study of rebellion, revolution, and mobilization: Adria Lawrence (Johns Hopkins) and Paul Staniland (University of Chicago). The panel will be chaired by Peter Krause (Boston College).

Sub Unit

• Division 44: Democracy and Autocracy

Individual Presentations

• Democracy After War - Nancy Bermeo, Princeton University

• Revolutionary Violence and Counterrevolution - Killian Clarke, Georgetown University

• Managing the Move to Non-Violence: How Social Movements Tactically De-Escalate - Devashree Gupta, Carleton College

• Rethinking Nonviolent Resistance in an Age of State Violence & Authoritarianism - Kai Massey Thaler, University of California, Santa Barbara

Chair

• Peter Krause Boston College

Discussants

• Adria Lawrence Johns Hopkins University

• Paul Staniland University of Chicago