Between Mao and Gandhi: Strategies of Violence and Nonviolence in Revolutionary Movements

International Security Program Seminar Series

Overview

From Eastern Europe to South Africa to the Arab Spring, nonviolent action has proven capable of overthrowing autocratic regimes and bringing about revolutionary political change. In fact, recent research suggests that nonviolent movements are more than twice as effective in achieving their goals than violent ones. So why do some political movements nevertheless believe it necessary to take up arms? Can they be convinced otherwise? In this seminar, Ches Thurber examined why political movements that seek to overthrow the state come to embrace a strategy of either armed insurgency or civil resistance. Drawing from case studies of revolutionary movements in Nepal as well as cross-national quantitative analysis, he argued that characteristics of a movement's base of popular support—its size, organization, and networked structure—influence the movement's perceptions of the relative effectiveness of violent versus nonviolent tactics and consequently shape its strategic behavior. The findings have implications for policymakers who have an interest in better predicting where protests are more likely to turn violent or in encouraging groups to embrace nonviolent methods.

This presentation was broadcast by Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National on its Big Ideas program on February 17, 2015 at 8 PM.