Minds of the Movement
An ICNC blog on the people and power of civil resistance
"Stop the torture in Sudan" protest in Manchester, England, 2019. Credit: (CC BY-SA 2.0, unedited).
“It is like some diplomats only see instability when bombs fall on a presidential palace. But we Sudanese have suffered instability for over 30 years under a dictatorship…”
Last May, I helped organize a round table discussion at the annual SIPRI Forum on Peace and Development in Stockholm, Sweden. At one point, the current war in Sudan came to the fore, suggesting a general misunderstanding about nonviolent movements for rights, justice and freedom among some discussion participants.
Sudan, November 6, 2019. The Sudanese have been living under dictatorship for more than 30 years. Credit: Abbasher (CC BY-SA 4.0, unedited).
One participant suggested that the fighting between the Rapid Support Forces paramilitaries and the army of Sudan resulted from the nonviolent revolution. Another participant suggested that the overthrow of a regime, even when peaceful, ushers in tremendous instability and insecurity.
Quoted at the top of this article, the Sudanese activist in the group promptly made it clear why these perceptions were flawed. She pointed out that it wasn't the peaceful people of Sudan who started shooting and that participants’ understanding of “stability” was based on a faulty logic. People resorted to mass nonviolent protests because they were fed up with the authoritarian system who was thriving on continuous instability to oppress its people and blackmail its regional neighbors and the European Union.
This exchange led me to realize there is a real need to understand the nature of nonviolent movements better, to clarify the perceived risks of working with movements, and to identify ways of improving engagement with movements—especially for diplomats and policymakers. A better comprehension among these key actors would help pave the way toward inclusion of nonviolent movements on the list of actors eligible for EU support—a key step in pressing toward authentic, grassroots change at the societal level.
Breaking down barriers
A fishbowl discussion can facilitate conversations between diverse actors such as policymakers and grassroots actors. Credit: Author.
The SIPRI forum organizers were so kind as to let me re-organize the boardroom for the round table discussion. I removed all the tables and arranged chairs in a circle, setting the stage for one of the liberating structures: the "user experience fishbowl".
This setup allowed us to bring together activists, researchers, policymakers and diplomats with direct field work to share their experience with external support for nonviolent movements—whether on the giving or receiving end. The groups were encircled by others who were interested in listening to or joining the exchange. After half an hour of inner-circle discussion, I opened the conversation to those in the outer circle.
The discussions and questions made it clear that movements often tend to be equated with chaos or unruly conduct. By creating a horizontal space for open dialogue between a broad range of practitioners both inside and outside of movements, we were able to begin breaking down barriers between these diverse actors and getting to the bottom of exactly why some widespread assumptions about movements persist.
One of the reasons is that many officials see movements through a security lens, which usually means disregarding political and human rights dimensions. Movements are not often a direct threat to stability, although they do challenge the status quo. They bring people together for a perceived common good. At a minimum, they are expressions of social, political and economic ideas that formal political parties or institutions do not sufficiently represent.
Movements as parties to a conflict
Protesters march against the 2021 military coup and for democracy in Myanmar. Nonviolent movements advance the same values that policymakers and diplomats do. Credit: Hnoung Eain Thin.
Of course, many diplomats and policymakers are sympathetic to a movement’s ideals and policy demands. But many of the round table participants expressed confusion about exactly how to engage with a movement. For example, as movements sometimes don't have a clear leadership structure, who should the diplomat talk to?
These are legitimate questions. After all, nonviolent movements are, despite their peaceful means, the result of some conflict, making it challenging to support them without being perceived as taking sides. So, how can this tension be alleviated?
However impressive nonviolent revolutions may be, the bulk of nonviolent movements are series of lower intensity campaigns fueled by specific policy demands that seek to advance a cause without completely overhauling the system in place. At this level, people defend civic space and promote democratic principles. They protect the environment and promote gender equality. And so on.
These policy demands provide fertile ground for collaboration between officials and movement actors. For example, the Ukrainian participants of our round table discussion shared how their government invited members of the anti-corruption movement to be part of the anti-corruption council of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, showcasing that a government can proactively invite a critical, independent actor to improve its overall performance.
Conflict is always difficult to navigate, but failing to pay due attention to uncomfortable realities doesn't mean that they will disappear. On the contrary, societal tensions are likely to become increasingly virulent and explode into rabid forms of unrest if they aren't duly channeled toward constructive ends, which nonviolent movements are known to achieve with remarkable success.
This is not to say that every nonviolent uprising results in a success story. Still, it is becoming increasingly clear that external support, especially focused on training and convening, combined with clear political support for a civilian regime, increases success.
The path forward for movement eligibility
Click to access the report PDF.
Organized collective action waged nonviolently by engaged individuals can be a potent force for peaceful change—and that desired change often aligns with values many officials stand for.
For political and development actors, movements comprise a still somewhat uncharted territory. However, within EU institutions and forums like the OECD, people are beginning to understand that civil society comprises not just institutions but also semi-formal or informal groups.
This year, I co-edited with Véronique Dudouet a report entitled “Attentive, assertive, supportive: EU support to nonviolent movements” (by Sergio Rodríguez Prieto), which sparked some interest in policy dialogue on why and, more importantly, how we can improve support for nonviolent movements. This topic has been a significant priority in US-based civil resistance conversations as well.
A first step is creating spaces for cross-sectoral dialogue. If we want to better understand the nature of movements and the potential synergies they hold, we must continue bringing activists into our policy conversations so they can speak for themselves.
PAX and the Berghof Foundation will continue to engage in policy dialogue on the potential of movements, to promote the inclusion of nonviolent movements on the list of actors eligible for EU support, and to help define other ways to be supportive of them.
