The success of nonviolent civil resistance: Erica Chenoweth at TEDxBoulder

Between 1900-2006, campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance were twice as successful as violent campaigns. Erica will talk about her research on the impressive historical record of civil resistance in the 20th century and discuss the promise of unarmed struggle in the 21st century. She will focus on the so-called "3.5% rule"—the notion that no government can withstand a challenge of 3.5% of its population without either accommodating the movement or (in extreme cases) disintegrating. In addition to explaining why nonviolent resistance has been so effective, she will also share some lessons learned about why it sometimes fails.

Videography credits
Jenn Calaway, Enhancer
Michael Hering, Lodo Cinema
Sarah Megyesy, Side Pocket Images
Satya Peram, Flatirons Films
Sean Williams, RMO Films
Anthony Lopez, Cross Beyond
David Oakley

[peterbergel]

This is some of the most exciting work I've encountered in 45 years since becoming a nonviolence trainer.

[moeeazycook]

We, people of Myanmar are now using your method : Nonviolence. I'll come back when the result becomes more clear.

[ericachenoweth]

For references and further resources, I link to a bunch of materials at my blog, Rational Insurgent.

[teebalicious]

I have Why Civil Resistance Works in paperback and audiobook, and I recommend it almost daily.

An incredibly important work, and a desperately needed counter to the increasingly violent narrative on all sides. I’m very glad to have this shorter presentation to post.

[ericasullivan]

I'm here because of class assignment. I absolutely loved this! The idea if Gandhi and King being taught first and not a after fact? Sheesh !!! & this video was 9 years ago? Where has this gem been?

[xInfisphere]

This knowledge and wisdom are needed now more than ever in our generation.

[Griesmer]

She nails it on the head, our education system has failed us, as well as our parents. We need to start getting people to realize there's nothing super natural about not killing each other.

[jamescallahan]

Her book Why Civil Resistance Works changed my view on resistance, conflict, regime change, civil disobedience, and everything inbetween

[ketch_up]

Pretty cool talk, but one problem with it is this binary between violent vs non violent resistance. In at least some important cases they are intertwined. For example, during the earlier days of the Syrian revolution, armed groups would prevent the army from entering the area that non violent protests were taking place. This after the Syrian army dealt with non violent protests by shooting demonstrators en masse.

[nskoghan]

we are doing exactly that in West Cameroons now. civil disobedience.

[iberia]

As we look at the social unrest we are facing today, this would be a wonderful time to bring back this Talk, to infuse it in the actions that we are taking. I believe that change needs action n order to occur - but I want that in a non-violent way.

[katarinaschafer]

Awesome, thanks for this inspiring and wonderful talk. Peace is the way <3

[royscheffers]

I like your talk and thanks for all the research you have put in it! Let's pass on the message. Shared...

[Jamesrjs]

These are difficult issues and I certainly have no answers.  For me though, the main takeaway from this Talk has to do with numbers, diffusion and penetration;  i.e., as the numbers (of those involved in resistance) grow, they increasingly permeate more broad spectra of society.  As this happens, more and more people have closer interests in the resistance (or change-seeking, revolution, whatever you want to call it--it doesn't matter) and are thus drawn into it, either in support or in opposition.

For example, she mentioned that no State operative, however brutal their job might be (e.g., the East German Stazi) (sp?) is completely disconnected from the society in which that person lives and operates.  That, IMO, is a crucial point.

She also talked about people who may be sympathetic but 'risk-averse, ' who, when they see many others demonstrating, et al, become more willing to join in--the 'safety-in-numbers' idea.  I can understand how, Once a certain 'critical mass' is reached (and I do think that this minimum proportion is essential), the growth of the movement (resistance, revolution, et al--whatever) almost certainly will increase exponentially, simply because of the multitude of social and other ties that connect virtually all individuals within any given society.

Chris Hedges, who covered a multitude of violent and non-violent revolutions, emphasizes something like this in his own commentary on He provides examples of this dynamic working in many instances, including Czechoslovakia and East Germany;  when those charged with firing on the crowds have family members in those crowds, well, the effect of that is obvious.

I remain skeptical about the efficacy of this in any and all situations;  I think each is unique, and requires its own strategies and tactics.  And, although I don't like the idea, I do think that in some instances, the strategic or tactical use of some acts and levels of violence may become necessary.  Even Chris Hedges acknowledges this, although, as he points out, when violence becomes an absolute necessity, the results are always tragic, everyone loses.

All extremely complex, certainly from a moral perspective, and from a strategic perspective.  I doubt there are any absolute answers--I certainly have none.  But I do feel certain of one thing: we must do Something--act, preferably in a non-violent manner, but act, express resistance to the status quo, or nothing will change.

[fotohpaul]

I maybe buy the idea that non violence resistance is more effective in building better societies after the change but I would ask you to dig deep into the conditions and cultures that would leverage non-violence options to violent ones. In most african countries, the dictatorial leadership is inplanted and financed by Western "democratic" countries and therefore they are not answerable to their people in anyway. Any non violent action is met with state how do you promote non violence tactics in such an environment? Congo Kinshasa has not succeeded, SA did not succeed with Non violence alone, most French speaking African countries cannot succeed, Egypt did not succeed because the violent option overturned the non violent we are really in a messy world.

[rosemaryclunie]

Fabulous!! Extremely enlightening. Thank you

[whatiswrongwiththeworld]

Unfortunately, some people never even entertain the thought that violence might not be a good solution to problems.

[pbconcerned]

Excellent! Spreading this around Indivisible! Thank you, Erica!

[maryleidaromeromartinez]

I always wondered how could people allow such atrocities when the majority was against and now I know. I am an Amerindian living in Venezuela and when I compare over 500 years of struggle with contemporary history I now understand that a NATION where everyone defends only his/hers interests in no match against a group of people however small in numbers that stick together for a common interest.

[chrispatrick]

I do think that just one century might be too short, considering the major conflicts that dominated the first half of it being the most destructive in human history. This might explain the shift towards the end of it, people were tired of violence period.

I cannot help but think that property rights are themselves based on violence, and thus, all societies have violence inherent to them. IE. Who gave you that land? Your grandfather? Where did he get it? His grandfather? And him? Eventually, you reach a point where ownership/property sprang from violence (or at the very least; attendance). And thus, living in a place, or near a place, for some period of time precludes others from using it to sustain themselves? Thus, violence.

Though...I think it is interesting. Her facts are strong, and there is no denying that the trend is continuing. So for now, I support this as the primary tool in our new, evolving society.