Non Violent Resistance

Chenoweth and Stephans considerations and research show that non fantastic campaigns are to a greater extent successful than savage campaigns against violent political regimes. Though violent protests brush off show to be successful and they do get the point crosswise though in a very different charge, non violent protests I leave behind have to agree, are the best and most efficient way to go about combating a violent immunity. With cases such as Dr.Martin Luther King, and Ghandi be two of the most noned cases. (not to say that in that respect are not m all more) The two writers argue 2 main points as to wherefore a nonviolent approaches are strategically more sound than those that campaign violence. The first argument is t hat when a violent throw (especially a regime) tries to repress an non-violent campaign, the repression may backfire. First, repressing nonviolent campaigns may backfire.In backfire, an foul actoften violent repressionrecoils against its originator s, often resulting in the breakdown of deference among regime supporters, mobilization of the population against the regime, and international condemnation of the regime (Cenoweth Stephan, 11) In turn when a violent regime confronts a non-violent regime with violence, it sends a message of hostility that will label that country hostile. I bear on this with the, Nuke the Middle East comments.Though acts of terrorism may be parking subject field in the area the amount of civilian and peaceful citizens in the area would make a no holds bar bombing unacceptable (as thoroughly as unlawful in regards to international laws) They also mention a breakdown in support for the violent regime. I agree. As a violent force aggressively challenges a nonviolent movement that is retributive that, non violent, support tends to diminish from the regime causing a power rupture and essentially the regime could collapse due to exhausting funds and omit of support.That is a very interesting and tr ue perspective of a non violent protest strategy that I had not thought of and after cerebration about it I tend I lean more towards this argument than I did when I had first began reading this article. Their second argument for non-violent campaigns is that they raise negotiations. They explain that most regimes are more easily swayed to negotiate with a non violent organization as they are not causing malign the regime itself or the military by taking hands on action.They bring up something called Correspondence Inference Theory. Basically we respond to an adversary based on their actions. If theyre non violent you would confront them as such and the akin goes if they are violent. They make the point that public acceptance is the heart of any resistance and the public masses would be more opt to pass off a non violent one than a violent. The reason is simple, the public will not feel as threatened. I feel as though these are great arguments.If by chance a cop de gumminess h ad arose in the united states i feel i would be more opt to join a non violent route, such as the hipster movement in the 1960s where the protests were expressed via music instead of violence. Of course there are special occurrences where the two above arguments are invalid. During the civil rights protests umpteen African American protesters were hosed down by the authorities even though they had followed Dr. Kings message of peace.Dr. King himself though an advocate of peace was assassinated by the opposition. As previously stated I agree with the authors that a non violent approach strategically is a wonderful idea but it has a down side and I believe that it leaves the peace makers vulnerable to opposition extremists who are not worried about international opinion A few recent examples being Terrorist organizations like Al Queda, and tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and North Korea.