This article is part of a series of publications of academic debates, launched by the CEU Debate Society and The CEU Weekly. The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect the writers’ personal opinions but are rather roles taken up in the context of a debate.
Proposition: Alexandru Moise (POLS 2014)
While we mostly agree that violent protests are illegitimate under democratic regimes, we usually intuitively believe that citizens have a right to violence under oppressive regimes. However, the moral case for violence is shaky at best even under these regimes. Moreover, even if there was a moral case for it, the real world impact of a violent opposition on the movement, the political system and the population make a clear case that violence is never a correct course of action.
One of the main strengths of an opposition movement in an oppressive regime is that it differentiates itself from the practices of that regime. If a movement does in fact want to democratize the system, then it is obliged to use non-violent means. Too often we've seen cases where violent protest movements take power only to perpetuate (or worsen) the practices of the previous regime. The Iranian revolution of 1979, the first Egyptian government under Morsi and the continuing cycles of violence and civil war in the Ivory Coast attest to this fact. The point is that the opposition is not always legitimate, and by turning to violence it further de-legitimizes itself. A further point when considering the moral dimension is that there are always other means. Peaceful protests have not only been the norm in overturning oppressive regimes (from decolonization in India to the round-table talks in Eastern Europe in 1989), but they've also been much more successful for the reasons I will now turn to.
The fact of the matter is that oppositions need to think strategically when considering their tactics under oppressive regimes. They need to realize that it's not only their actions that matter but also the opportunity structure of the system. When Hungary attempted a revolution in 1956, it was brutally oppressed by Soviet troops. In contrast, when opportunities opened up in 1989, non-violent negotiations brought down the oppressive regime.
The problem of violence goes much further than being inopportune in that it changes the very nature of opportunities and constraints. At the basic level, the violent wing of the opposition can highjack the movement and shift it away from its initial goals. More importantly when movements turn violent, not only do they lose sight of their goals, but the very nature of the relations between the movement and the state changes. The clash no longer revolves around claims but is turned into a struggle for power and survival. At its worst this creates a prisoners dilemma where neither actor can make any concessions for fear of retribution, thus perpetuating violence. The ongoing violence in Syria is a clear example of this. Even in less extreme situations, as is the current one in Ukraine, this changes the opportunities and tactics of oppressive governments. Not only does it give them a reason to use extreme violence, but it also makes it impossible for them to offer the concessions that would have reached a compromise before the movement turned violent. Case in point, because of the violent nature of the protests, it is less likely that Ukraine will reach a compromise and that violence will continue. Protesters now desire more than an agreement with the EU and are bent on bringing down the government.
Opposition: Endre Borbáth (POLS 2014)
One of the things we naturally feel uncomfortable with is violence. In the eyes of many, the social stigma attached to the issue makes violent means unjustifiable. I will argue that in case of an oppressive regime it is not only one of the most effective means for protest groups, but relying on violence is also the morally legitimate standpoint they should take.
When masses of people hit the streets to rise against their oppressors, they have two comparative advantages which eventually can sway the power balance to their advantage: their number and the perception of being associated with a just cause. Violent means, by breaking into the comfort zone of the domestic silent majority and by raising awareness of the international audience are likely to feed into both, increasing the number of protesters and creating an international narrative where protestors are identified with the forces of good in the ultimate clash of good and evil. In every society (especially in oppressed ones) there are large masses of people who do not see any value in being personally engaged with public affairs. Most of these people will be swayed when they see their fellow citizens being caught in violent clashes, in crackdowns sponsored by their oppressors. In such cases, internal differences and existing cleavages are blurred by the need to unite against the oppressive government and change the system once and for all.
In addition, seeing violence will not leave the international audience unresponsive. No matter how cynical we often times tend to be with foreign western involvement, if these governments take a stance against the oppressive regime, that surely results in a damage of these regimes international (and thus internal) legitimacy. The reason what forces them to make their position clear is the narrative what the international media coverage and the social networks create. Violence ensures that the story breaks into the international news cycle (it becomes salient), and perceived power imbalance makes the audience more likely to identify with the protesters. Afterwards, any collaboration – which is often times what ensures the survival of oppressive regimes (e.g. Mubarak) – between these governments and the oppressive regime, is politically impossible under the careful attention of the population/media.
One could argue that the population can survive without any protesting in an oppressive regime, or with non-violent protests. Non-violent means of protests, although they might succeed, they have far less chances to bring down a regime since in the current context of the continuous information exposure (on traditional/new media channels) and disenchanted politics they does not ensure the above comparative benefits. Starting from this premise, violent protests are justified by their effectiveness, since in a context where people lack their freedoms and agency over the choices they make (ranging from existential to market choices), opting for the safe side by choosing survival is not a morally assumable option. Even if many would chose survival over resistance, there is no moral justification to leave an oppressive regime as a legacy for future generations, if we did not do everything what was in our capacity to change the status quo.
Photo: cryptome.org
Photo: cryptome.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment