What Do You Think?

[andylauren]

This is a book with a lot of interesting ideas.

While it is talking about overthrowing unjust dictators, a lot of the ideas seem like they would work when attempting to bring down corrupt government departments and organizations.

If nothing else it is something to think about.

Some of the charts and text did not hold its format, so it will be easier to read some parts of the text from the original pdf files.

= = = = = = = =

From Dictatorship to Democracy
By Gene Sharp
Fourth U.s. edition


All material appearing in this publication is in the public domain and
may be reproduced without permission from Gene Sharp.

The Albert Einstein Institution
P.O. Box 455
East Boston, MA 02128, USA
Tel: USA +1 617-247-4882
Fax: USA +1 617-247-4035
E-mail: einstein@igc.org
Website: www.aeinstein.org


First Edition, May 2002
Second Edition, June 2003
Third Edition, February 2008
Fourth Edition, May 2010


From Dictatorship to Democracy was originally published in Bangkok
in 1993 by the Committee for the Restoration of Democracy in Burma
in association with Khit Pyaing (The New Era Journal). It has since
been translated into at least thirty-one other languages and has been
published in Serbia, Indonesia, and Thailand,

[andylauren]

preFace
One of my major concerns for many years has been how people
could prevent and destroy dictatorships. This has been nurtured in
part because of a belief that human beings should not be dominated
and destroyed by such regimes. That belief has been strengthened
by readings on the importance of human freedom, on the nature of
dictatorships (from Aristotle to analysts of totalitarianism), and histories
of dictatorships (especially the Nazi and Stalinist systems).
Over the years I have had occasion to get to know people who
lived and suffered under Nazi rule, including some who survived
concentration camps. In Norway I met people who had resisted
fascist rule and survived, and heard of those who perished. I talked
with Jews who had escaped the Nazi clutches and with persons who
had helped to save them.
Knowledge of the terror of Communist rule in various countries
has been learned more from books than personal contacts. The terror
of these systems appeared to me to be especially poignant for these
dictatorships were imposed in the name of liberation from oppression
and exploitation.
In more recent decades through visits of persons from dictatorially
ruled countries, such as Panama, Poland, Chile, Tibet, and
Burma, the realities of today’s dictatorships became more real. From
Tibetans who had fought against Chinese Communist aggression,
Russians who had defeated the August 1991 hard-line coup, and
Thais who had nonviolently blocked a return to military rule, I
have gained often troubling perspectives on the insidious nature of
dictatorships.
The sense of pathos and outrage against the brutalities, along
with admiration of the calm heroism of unbelievably brave men
and women, were sometimes strengthened by visits to places where
the dangers were still great, and yet defiance by brave people continued.
These included Panama under Noriega; Vilnius, Lithuania,
under continued Soviet repression; Tiananmen Square, Beijing,
during both the festive demonstration of freedom and while the

[andylauren]

first armored personnel carriers entered that fateful night; and the
jungle headquarters of the democratic opposition at Manerplaw in
“liberated Burma.”
Sometimes I visited the sites of the fallen, as the television tower
and the cemetery in Vilnius, the public park in Riga where people
had been gunned down, the center of Ferrara in northern Italy where
the fascists lined up and shot resisters, and a simple cemetery in
Manerplaw filled with bodies of men who had died much too young.
It is a sad realization that every dictatorship leaves such death and
destruction in its wake.
Out of these concerns and experiences grew a determined
hope that prevention of tyranny might be possible, that successful
struggles against dictatorships could be waged without mass mutual
slaughters, that dictatorships could be destroyed and new ones
prevented from rising out of the ashes.
I have tried to think carefully about the most effective ways
in which dictatorships could be successfully disintegrated with the
least possible cost in suffering and lives. In this I have drawn on my
studies over many years of dictatorships, resistance movements,
revolutions, political thought, governmental systems, and especially
realistic nonviolent struggle.
This publication is the result. I am certain it is far from perfect.
But, perhaps, it offers some guidelines to assist thought and planning
to produce movements of liberation that are more powerful
and effective than might otherwise be the case.
Of necessity, and of deliberate choice, the focus of this essay is
on the generic problem of how to destroy a dictatorship and to prevent
the rise of a new one. I am not competent to produce a detailed
analysis and prescription for a particular country. However, it is my
hope that this generic analysis may be useful to people in, unfortunately,
too many countries who now face the realities of dictatorial
rule. They will need to examine the validity of this analysis for their
situations and the extent to which its major recommendations are, or
can be made to be, applicable for their liberation struggles.
Nowhere in this analysis do I assume that defying dictators will
be an easy or cost-free endeavor. All forms of struggle have complicaix
tions and costs. Fighting dictators will, of course, bring casualties. It
is my hope, however, that this analysis will spur resistance leaders
to consider strategies that may increase their effective power while
reducing the relative level of casualties.
Nor should this analysis be interpreted to mean that when a
specific dictatorship is ended, all other problems will also disappear.
The fall of one regime does not bring in a utopia. Rather, it opens the
way for hard work and long efforts to build more just social, economic,
and political relationships and the eradication of other forms
of injustices and oppression. It is my hope that this brief examination
of how a dictatorship can be disintegrated may be found useful
wherever people live under domination and desire to be free.
Gene Sharp
6 October 1993
Albert Einstein Institution
Boston, Massachusetts

[andylauren]

one
Facing Dictatorships realistically
In recent years various dictatorships — of both internal and external
origin — have collapsed or stumbled when confronted by defiant,
mobilized people. Often seen as firmly entrenched and impregnable,
some of these dictatorships proved unable to withstand the concerted
political, economic, and social defiance of the people.
Since 1980 dictatorships have collapsed before the predominantly
nonviolent defiance of people in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania,
Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Slovenia, Madagascar,
Mali, Bolivia, and the Philippines. Nonviolent resistance has furthered
the movement toward democratization in Nepal, Zambia,
South Korea, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, Brazil, Uruguay, Malawi, Thailand,
Bulgaria, Hungary, Nigeria, and various parts of the former
Soviet Union (playing a significant role in the defeat of the August
1991 attempted hard-line coup d’état).
In addition, mass political defiance1 has occurred in China,
Burma, and Tibet in recent years. Although those struggles have
not brought an end to the ruling dictatorships or occupations, they
have exposed the brutal nature of those repressive regimes to the
world community and have provided the populations with valuable
experience with this form of struggle.
1 The term used in this context was introduced by Robert Helvey. “Political defi-
ance” is nonviolent struggle (protest, noncooperation, and intervention) applied
defiantly and actively for political purposes. The term originated in response to
the confusion and distortion created by equating nonviolent struggle with pacifism
and moral or religious “nonviolence.” “Defiance” denotes a deliberate challenge to
authority by disobedience, allowing no room for submission. “Political defiance”
describes the environment in which the action is employed (political) as well as
the objective (political power). The term is used principally to describe action by
populations to regain from dictatorships control over governmental institutions
by relentlessly attacking their sources of power and deliberately using strategic
planning and operations to do so. In this paper, political defiance, nonviolent resistance,
and nonviolent struggle will be used interchangeably, although the latter
two terms generally refer to struggles with a broader range of objectives (social,
economic, psychological, etc.).

[andylauren]

The collapse of dictatorships in the above named countries certainly
has not erased all other problems in those societies: poverty,
crime, bureaucratic inefficiency, and environmental destruction are
often the legacy of brutal regimes. However, the downfall of these
dictatorships has minimally lifted much of the suffering of the victims
of oppression, and has opened the way for the rebuilding of
these societies with greater political democracy, personal liberties,
and social justice.
a continuing problem
There has indeed been a trend towards greater democratization and
freedom in the world in the past decades. According to Freedom
House, which compiles a yearly international survey of the status of
political rights and civil liberties, the number of countries around the
world classified as “Free” has grown significantly in recent years:2
Free partly Free not Free
1983 54 47 64
1993 75 73 38
2003 89 55 48
2009 89 62 42
However, this positive trend is tempered by the large numbers
of people still living under conditions of tyranny. As of 2008, 34% of
the world’s 6.68 billion population lived in countries designated as
“Not Free,”3 that is, areas with extremely restricted political rights
and civil liberties. The 42 countries in the “Not Free” category are
ruled by a range of military dictatorships (as in Burma), traditional
repressive monarchies (as in Saudi Arabia and Bhutan), dominant
political parties (as in China and North Korea), foreign occupiers (as
in Tibet and Western Sahara), or are in a state of transition.
2 Gene Sharp
2 Freedom House, Freedom in the World, http://www.freedomhouse.org.
3 Ibid.

[andylauren]

Many countries today are in a state of rapid economic, political,
and social change. Although the number of “Free” countries has increased
in recent years, there is a great risk that many nations, in the
face of such rapid fundamental changes, will move in the opposite
direction and experience new forms of dictatorship. Military cliques,
ambitious individuals, elected officials, and doctrinal political parties
will repeatedly seek to impose their will. Coups d’état are and will
remain a common occurrence. Basic human and political rights will
continue to be denied to vast numbers of peoples.
Unfortunately, the past is still with us. The problem of dictatorships
is deep. People in many countries have experienced decades or
even centuries of oppression, whether of domestic or foreign origin.
Frequently, unquestioning submission to authority figures and rulers
has been long inculcated. In extreme cases, the social, political,
economic, and even religious institutions of the society — outside
of state control — have been deliberately weakened, subordinated,
or even replaced by new regimented institutions used by the state
or ruling party to control the society. The population has often been
atomized (turned into a mass of isolated individuals) unable to work
together to achieve freedom, to confide in each other, or even to do
much of anything at their own initiative.
The result is predictable: the population becomes weak, lacks
self-confidence, and is incapable of resistance. People are often too
frightened to share their hatred of the dictatorship and their hunger
for freedom even with family and friends. People are often too
terrified to think seriously of public resistance. In any case, what
would be the use? Instead, they face suffering without purpose and
a future without hope.
Current conditions in today’s dictatorships may be much worse
than earlier. In the past, some people may have attempted resistance.
Short-lived mass protests and demonstrations may have occurred.
Perhaps spirits soared temporarily. At other times, individuals and
small groups may have conducted brave but impotent gestures,
asserting some principle or simply their defiance. However noble
the motives, such past acts of resistance have often been insufficient
to overcome the people’s fear and habit of obedience, a necessary
prerequisite to destroy the dictatorship. Sadly, those acts may have
brought instead only increased suffering and death, not victories or
even hope.

[andylauren]

Freedom through violence?
What is to be done in such circumstances? The obvious possibilities
seem useless. Constitutional and legal barriers, judicial decisions,
and public opinion are normally ignored by dictators. Understandably,
reacting to the brutalities, torture, disappearances, and
killings, people often have concluded that only violence can end a
dictatorship. Angry victims have sometimes organized to fight the
brutal dictators with whatever violent and military capacity they
could muster, despite the odds being against them. These people
have often fought bravely, at great cost in suffering and lives. Their
accomplishments have sometimes been remarkable, but they rarely
have won freedom. Violent rebellions can trigger brutal repression
that frequently leaves the populace more helpless than before.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point
is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very
type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority.
The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly.
However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually
the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators
almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition,
transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the
democrats are (almost always) no match.
When conventional military rebellion is recognized as unrealistic,
some dissidents then favor guerrilla warfare. However, guerrilla
warfare rarely, if ever, benefits the oppressed population or ushers in
a democracy. Guerrilla warfare is no obvious solution, particularly
given the very strong tendency toward immense casualties among
one’s own people. The technique is no guarantor against failure,
despite supporting theory and strategic analyses, and sometimes
international backing. Guerrilla struggles often last a very long
time. Civilian populations are often displaced by the ruling gov-
ernment, with immense human suffering and social dislocation.
Even when successful, guerrilla struggles often have signifi-
cant long-term negative structural consequences. Immediately, the
attacked regime becomes more dictatorial as a result of its countermeasures.
If the guerrillas should finally succeed, the resulting
new regime is often more dictatorial than its predecessor due to the
centralizing impact of the expanded military forces and the weakening
or destruction of the society’s independent groups and institutions
during the struggle — bodies that are vital in establishing and
maintaining a democratic society. Persons hostile to dictatorships
should look for another option.

[andylauren]

coups, elections, foreign saviors?
A military coup d’état against a dictatorship might appear to be
relatively one of the easiest and quickest ways to remove a particularly
repugnant regime. However, there are very serious problems
with that technique. Most importantly, it leaves in place the existing
maldistribution of power between the population and the elite in
control of the government and its military forces. The removal of
particular persons and cliques from the governing positions most
likely will merely make it possible for another group to take their
place. Theoretically, this group might be milder in its behavior and
be open in limited ways to democratic reforms. However, the opposite
is as likely to be the case.
After consolidating its position, the new clique may turn out to
be more ruthless and more ambitious than the old one. Consequently,
the new clique — in which hopes may have been placed — will be
able to do whatever it wants without concern for democracy or
human rights. That is not an acceptable answer to the problem of
dictatorship.
Elections are not available under dictatorships as an instrument
of significant political change. Some dictatorial regimes,
such as those of the former Soviet-dominated Eastern bloc, went
through the motions in order to appear democratic. Those elections,
however, were merely rigidly controlled plebiscites to get public
endorsement of candidates already hand picked by the dictators.
Dictators under pressure may at times agree to new elections, but
then rig them to place civilian puppets in government offices. If
opposition candidates have been allowed to run and were actually
elected, as occurred in Burma in 1990 and Nigeria in 1993, results
may simply be ignored and the “victors” subjected to intimidation,
arrest, or even execution. Dictators are not in the business
of allowing elections that could remove them from their thrones.
Many people now suffering under a brutal dictatorship, or who
have gone into exile to escape its immediate grasp, do not believe that
the oppressed can liberate themselves. They expect that their people
can only be saved by the actions of others. These people place their
confidence in external forces. They believe that only international
help can be strong enough to bring down the dictators.
The view that the oppressed are unable to act effectively is
sometimes accurate for a certain time period. As noted, often oppressed
people are unwilling and temporarily unable to struggle
because they have no confidence in their ability to face the ruthless
dictatorship, and no known way to save themselves. It is therefore
understandable that many people place their hope for liberation in
others. This outside force may be “public opinion,” the United Nations,
a particular country, or international economic and political
sanctions.
Such a scenario may sound comforting, but there are grave
problems with this reliance on an outside savior. Such confidence
may be totally misplaced. Usually no foreign saviors are coming, and
if a foreign state does intervene, it probably should not be trusted.
A few harsh realities concerning reliance on foreign intervention
need to be emphasized here:
• Frequently foreign states will tolerate, or even positively assist,
a dictatorship in order to advance their own economic
or political interests.
• Foreign states also may be willing to sell out an oppressed
people instead of keeping pledges to assist their liberation
at the cost of another objective.
• Some foreign states will act against a dictatorship only to
gain their own economic, political, or military control over
the country.
• The foreign states may become actively involved for positive
purposes only if and when the internal resistance movement
has already begun shaking the dictatorship, having
thereby focused international attention on the brutal nature
of the regime.
Dictatorships usually exist primarily because of the internal
power distribution in the home country. The population and society
are too weak to cause the dictatorship serious problems, wealth and
power are concentrated in too few hands. Although dictatorships
may benefit from or be somewhat weakened by international actions,
their continuation is dependent primarily on internal factors.
International pressures can be very useful, however, when they
are supporting a powerful internal resistance movement. Then, for
example, international economic boycotts, embargoes, the breaking
of diplomatic relations, expulsion from international organizations,
condemnation by United Nations bodies, and the like can assist
greatly. However, in the absence of a strong internal resistance
movement such actions by others are unlikely to happen.

[andylauren]

Facing the hard truth
The conclusion is a hard one. When one wants to bring down a
dictatorship most effectively and with the least cost then one has
four immediate tasks:
• One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves
in their determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills;
• One must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions
of the oppressed people;
• One must create a powerful internal resistance force; and
• One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation
and implement it skillfully.
A liberation struggle is a time for self-reliance and internal
strengthening of the struggle group. As Charles Stewart Parnell
called out during the Irish rent strike campaign in 1879 and 1880:
It is no use relying on the Government . . . . You must only
rely upon your own determination . . . . [H]elp yourselves
by standing together . . . strengthen those amongst yourselves
who are weak . . . , band yourselves together, organize
yourselves . . . and you must win . . .
When you have made this question ripe for settlement,
then and not till then will it be settled.4
Against a strong self-reliant force, given wise strategy, disciplined
and courageous action, and genuine strength, the dictatorship
will eventually crumble. Minimally, however, the above four
requirements must be fulfilled.
As the above discussion indicates, liberation from dictatorships
ultimately depends on the people’s ability to liberate themselves.
The cases of successful political defiance — or nonviolent struggle
for political ends — cited above indicate that the means do exist
for populations to free themselves, but that option has remained
undeveloped. We will examine this option in detail in the following
chapters. However, we should first look at the issue of negotiations
as a means of dismantling dictatorships.

[andylauren]

two
the Dangers oF negotiations
When faced with the severe problems of confronting a dictatorship
(as surveyed in Chapter One), some people may lapse back
into passive submission. Others, seeing no prospect of achieving
democracy, may conclude they must come to terms with the apparently
permanent dictatorship, hoping that through “conciliation,”
“compromise,” and “negotiations” they might be able to salvage
some positive elements and to end the brutalities. On the surface,
lacking realistic options, there is appeal in that line of thinking.
Serious struggle against brutal dictatorships is not a pleasant
prospect. Why is it necessary to go that route? Can’t everyone just
be reasonable and find ways to talk, to negotiate the way to a gradual
end to the dictatorship? Can’t the democrats appeal to the dictators’
sense of common humanity and convince them to reduce their
domination bit by bit, and perhaps finally to give way completely
to the establishment of a democracy?
It is sometimes argued that the truth is not all on one side. Perhaps
the democrats have misunderstood the dictators, who may have
acted from good motives in difficult circumstances? Or perhaps some
may think, the dictators would gladly remove themselves from the
difficult situation facing the country if only given some encouragement
and enticements. It may be argued that the dictators could be
offered a “win-win” solution, in which everyone gains something.
The risks and pain of further struggle could be unnecessary, it may
be argued, if the democratic opposition is only willing to settle the
conflict peacefully by negotiations (which may even perhaps be
assisted by some skilled individuals or even another government).
Would that not be preferable to a difficult struggle, even if it is one
conducted by nonviolent struggle rather than by military war?
merits and limitations of negotiations
Negotiations are a very useful tool in resolving certain types of issues
in conflicts and should not be neglected or rejected when they
are appropriate.
In some situations where no fundamental issues are at stake,
and therefore a compromise is acceptable, negotiations can be an
important means to settle a conflict. A labor strike for higher wages
is a good example of the appropriate role of negotiations in a conflict:
a negotiated settlement may provide an increase somewhere between
the sums originally proposed by each of the contending sides. Labor
conflicts with legal trade unions are, however, quite different than
the conflicts in which the continued existence of a cruel dictatorship
or the establishment of political freedom are at stake.
When the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious
principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future development
of the society, negotiations do not provide a way of reaching a
mutually satisfactory solution. On some basic issues there should
be no compromise. Only a shift in power relations in favor of the
democrats can adequately safeguard the basic issues at stake. Such
a shift will occur through struggle, not negotiations. This is not to
say that negotiations ought never to be used. The point here is that
negotiations are not a realistic way to remove a strong dictatorship
in the absence of a powerful democratic opposition.
Negotiations, of course, may not be an option at all. Firmly
entrenched dictators who feel secure in their position may refuse to
negotiate with their democratic opponents. Or, when negotiations
have been initiated, the democratic negotiators may disappear and
never be heard from again.

[andylauren]

negotiated surrender?
Individuals and groups who oppose dictatorship and favor negotiations
will often have good motives. Especially when a military
struggle has continued for years against a brutal dictatorship without
final victory, it is understandable that all the people of whatever
political persuasion would want peace. Negotiations are especially
likely to become an issue among democrats where the dictators have
clear military superiority and the destruction and casualties among
one’s own people are no longer bearable. There will then be a strong
temptation to explore any other route that might salvage some of the
democrats’ objectives while bringing an end to the cycle of violence
and counter-violence.
The offer by a dictatorship of “peace” through negotiations with
the democratic opposition is, of course, rather disingenuous. The
violence could be ended immediately by the dictators themselves, if
only they would stop waging war on their own people. They could
at their own initiative without any bargaining restore respect for
human dignity and rights, free political prisoners, end torture, halt
military operations, withdraw from the government, and apologize
to the people.
When the dictatorship is strong but an irritating resistance
exists, the dictators may wish to negotiate the opposition into surrender
under the guise of making “peace.” The call to negotiate
can sound appealing, but grave dangers can be lurking within the
negotiating room.
On the other hand, when the opposition is exceptionally strong
and the dictatorship is genuinely threatened, the dictators may seek
negotiations in order to salvage as much of their control or wealth
as possible. In neither case should the democrats help the dictators
achieve their goals.
Democrats should be wary of the traps that may be deliberately
built into a negotiation process by the dictators. The call for
negotiations when basic issues of political liberties are involved may
be an effort by the dictators to induce the democrats to surrender
peacefully while the violence of the dictatorship continues. In those
types of conflicts the only proper role of negotiations may occur at
the end of a decisive struggle in which the power of the dictators
has been effectively destroyed and they seek personal safe passage
to an international airport.
If this judgment sounds too harsh a commentary on negotiations,
perhaps some of the romanticism associated with them needs to
be moderated. Clear thinking is required as to how negotiations
operate.
“Negotiation” does not mean that the two sides sit down together
on a basis of equality and talk through and resolve the differences
that produced the conflict between them. Two facts must
be remembered. First, in negotiations it is not the relative justice of
the conflicting views and objectives that determines the content of a
negotiated agreement. Second, the content of a negotiated agreement
is largely determined by the power capacity of each side.
Several difficult questions must be considered. What can each
side do at a later date to gain its objectives if the other side fails to
come to an agreement at the negotiating table? What can each side
do after an agreement is reached if the other side breaks its word
and uses its available forces to seize its objectives despite the agreement?
A settlement is not reached in negotiations through an assessment
of the rights and wrongs of the issues at stake. While those
may be much discussed, the real results in negotiations come from
an assessment of the absolute and relative power situations of the
contending groups. What can the democrats do to ensure that their
minimum claims cannot be denied? What can the dictators do to
stay in control and neutralize the democrats? In other words, if an
agreement comes, it is more likely the result of each side estimating
how the power capacities of the two sides compare, and then
calculating how an open struggle might end.
Attention must also be given to what each side is willing to give
up in order to reach agreement. In successful negotiations there is
compromise, a splitting of differences. Each side gets part of what
it wants and gives up part of its objectives.
In the case of extreme dictatorships what are the pro-democracy
forces to give up to the dictators? What objectives of
the dictators are the pro-democracy forces to accept? Are the
democrats to give to the dictators (whether a political party or
a military cabal) a constitutionally-established permanent role
in the future government? Where is the democracy in that?
Even assuming that all goes well in negotiations, it is necessary
to ask: What kind of peace will be the result? Will life then be better
or worse than it would be if the democrats began or continued
to struggle?

[andylauren]

“agreeable” dictators
Dictators may have a variety of motives and objectives underlying
their domination: power, position, wealth, reshaping the society, and
the like. One should remember that none of these will be served if
they abandon their control positions. In the event of negotiations
dictators will try to preserve their goals.
Whatever promises offered by dictators in any negotiated
settlement, no one should ever forget that the dictators may promise
anything to secure submission from their democratic opponents, and
then brazenly violate those same agreements.
If the democrats agree to halt resistance in order to gain a reprieve
from repression, they may be very disappointed. A halt to
resistance rarely brings reduced repression. Once the restraining
force of internal and international opposition has been removed,
dictators may even make their oppression and violence more brutal
than before. The collapse of popular resistance often removes the
countervailing force that has limited the control and brutality of the
dictatorship. The tyrants can then move ahead against whomever
they wish. “For the tyrant has the power to inflict only that which
we lack the strength to resist,” wrote Krishnalal Shridharani.5
Resistance, not negotiations, is essential for change in conflicts
where fundamental issues are at stake. In nearly all cases, resistance
must continue to drive dictators out of power. Success is most often
5 Krishnalal Shridharani, War Without Violence: A Study of Gandhi’s Method and Its
Accomplishments (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939, and reprint New York and
London: Garland Publishing, 1972), p. 260.

determined not by negotiating a settlement but through the wise use
of the most appropriate and powerful means of resistance available.
It is our contention, to be explored later in more detail, that political
defiance, or nonviolent struggle, is the most powerful means available
to those struggling for freedom.
What kind of peace?
If dictators and democrats are to talk about peace at all, extremely
clear thinking is needed because of the dangers involved. Not everyone
who uses the word “peace” wants peace with freedom and
justice. Submission to cruel oppression and passive acquiescence to
ruthless dictators who have perpetrated atrocities on hundreds of
thousands of people is no real peace. Hitler often called for peace,
by which he meant submission to his will. A dictators’ peace is often
no more than the peace of the prison or of the grave.
There are other dangers. Well-intended negotiators sometimes
confuse the objectives of the negotiations and the negotiation process
itself. Further, democratic negotiators, or foreign negotiation specialists
accepted to assist in the negotiations, may in a single stroke provide
the dictators with the domestic and international legitimacy that
they had been previously denied because of their seizure of the state,
human rights violations, and brutalities. Without that desperately
needed legitimacy, the dictators cannot continue to rule indefinitely.
Exponents of peace should not provide them legitimacy.

[andylauren]

reasons for hope
As stated earlier, opposition leaders may feel forced to pursue negotiations
out of a sense of hopelessness of the democratic struggle.
However, that sense of powerlessness can be changed. Dictatorships
are not permanent. People living under dictatorships need not remain
weak, and dictators need not be allowed to remain powerful
indefinitely. Aristotle noted long ago, “. . . [O]ligarchy and tyranny
are shorter-lived than any other constitution. . . . [A]ll round, tyran-
nies have not lasted long.”6 Modern dictatorships are also vulnerable.
Their weaknesses can be aggravated and the dictators’ power can be
disintegrated. (In Chapter Four we will examine these weaknesses
in more detail.)
Recent history shows the vulnerability of dictatorships, and reveals
that they can crumble in a relatively short time span: whereas
ten years — 1980-1990 — were required to bring down the Communist
dictatorship in Poland, in East Germany and Czechoslovakia in
1989 it occurred within weeks. In El Salvador and Guatemala in 1944
the struggles against the entrenched brutal military dictators required
approximately two weeks each. The militarily powerful regime of
the Shah in Iran was undermined in a few months. The Marcos dictatorship
in the Philippines fell before people power within weeks
in 1986: the United States government quickly abandoned President
Marcos when the strength of the opposition became apparent. The
attempted hard-line coup in the Soviet Union in August 1991 was
blocked in days by political defiance. Thereafter, many of its long
dominated constituent nations in only days, weeks, and months
regained their independence.
The old preconception that violent means always work quickly
and nonviolent means always require vast time is clearly not valid.
Although much time may be required for changes in the underlying
situation and society, the actual fight against a dictatorship sometimes
occurs relatively quickly by nonviolent struggle.
Negotiations are not the only alternative to a continuing war
of annihilation on the one hand and capitulation on the other. The
examples just cited, as well as those listed in Chapter One, illustrate
that another option exists for those who want both peace and freedom:
political defiance.

[andylauren]

three
whence comes the power?
Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course no
simple task. It will require great strategic skill, organization, and
planning. Above all, it will require power. Democrats cannot hope
to bring down a dictatorship and establish political freedom without
the ability to apply their own power effectively.
But how is this possible? What kind of power can the democratic
opposition mobilize that will be sufficient to destroy the dictatorship
and its vast military and police networks? The answers lie in an oft
ignored understanding of political power. Learning this insight is
not really so difficult a task. Some basic truths are quite simple.
the “monkey master” fable
A Fourteenth Century Chinese parable by Liu-Ji, for example, outlines
this neglected understanding of political power quite well:7
In the feudal state of Chu an old man survived by keeping
monkeys in his service. The people of Chu called him “ju
gong” (monkey master).
Each morning, the old man would assemble the monkeys
in his courtyard, and order the eldest one to lead the others
to the mountains to gather fruits from bushes and trees.
It was the rule that each monkey had to give one-tenth of
his collection to the old man. Those who failed to do so
would be ruthlessly flogged. All the monkeys suffered
bitterly, but dared not complain.
7 This story, originally titled “Rule by Tricks” is from Yu-li-zi by Liu Ji (1311-1375)
and has been translated by Sidney Tai, all rights reserved. Yu-li-zi is also the pseudonym
of Liu Ji. The translation was originally published in Nonviolent Sanctions:
News from the Albert Einstein Institution (Cambridge, Mass.), Vol. IV, No. 3 (Winter
1992-1993), p. 3.
One day, a small monkey asked the other monkeys: “Did
the old man plant all the fruit trees and bushes?” The others
said: “No, they grew naturally.” The small monkey
further asked: “Can’t we take the fruits without the old
man’s permission?” The others replied: “Yes, we all can.”
The small monkey continued: “Then, why should we depend
on the old man; why must we all serve him?”
Before the small monkey was able to finish his statement,
all the monkeys suddenly became enlightened and awakened.
On the same night, watching that the old man had fallen
asleep, the monkeys tore down all the barricades of the
stockade in which they were confined, and destroyed the
stockade entirely. They also took the fruits the old man had
in storage, brought all with them to the woods, and never
returned. The old man finally died of starvation.
Yu-li-zi says, “Some men in the world rule their people by
tricks and not by righteous principles. Aren’t they just like
the monkey master? They are not aware of their muddleheadedness.
As soon as their people become enlightened,
their tricks no longer work.”

[andylauren]

necessary sources of political power
The principle is simple. Dictators require the assistance of the people
they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the sources
of political power. These sources of political power include:
• Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate,
and that they have a moral duty to obey it;
• Human resources, the number and importance of the persons
and groups which are obeying, cooperating, or providing
assistance to the rulers;
• Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific
actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and
groups;
• Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that
may induce people to obey and assist the rulers;
• Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or
have access to property, natural resources, financial resources,
the economic system, and means of communication and
transportation; and
• Sanctions, punishments, threatened or applied, against the
disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the submission
and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and
carry out its policies.
All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the
regime, on the submission and obedience of the population, and on
the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of
the society. These are not guaranteed.
Full cooperation, obedience, and support will increase the availability
of the needed sources of power and, consequently, expand
the power capacity of any government.
On the other hand, withdrawal of popular and institutional cooperation
with aggressors and dictators diminishes, and may sever,
the availability of the sources of power on which all rulers depend.
Without availability of those sources, the rulers’ power weakens and
finally dissolves.
Naturally, dictators are sensitive to actions and ideas that threaten
their capacity to do as they like. Dictators are therefore likely to
threaten and punish those who disobey, strike, or fail to cooperate.
However, that is not the end of the story. Repression, even brutalities,
do not always produce a resumption of the necessary degree of
submission and cooperation for the regime to function.
If, despite repression, the sources of power can be restricted or
severed for enough time, the initial results may be uncertainty and
confusion within the dictatorship. That is likely to be followed by
a clear weakening of the power of the dictatorship. Over time, the
withholding of the sources of power can produce the paralysis and
impotence of the regime, and in severe cases, its disintegration. The
dictators’ power will die, slowly or rapidly, from political starvation.
The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows,
in large degree a reflection of the relative determination of the
subjects to be free and their willingness and ability to resist efforts
to enslave them.
Contrary to popular opinion, even totalitarian dictatorships
are dependent on the population and the societies they rule. As the
political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953:
Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be
used too often. If totalitarian power must be used at all
times against the entire population, it is unlikely to remain
powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes require more
power for dealing with their subjects than do other types
of government, such regimes stand in greater need of
widespread and dependable compliance habits among
their people; more than that they have to be able to count
on the active support of at least significant parts of the
population in case of need.8
The English Nineteenth Century legal theorist John Austin
described the situation of a dictatorship confronting a disaffected
people. Austin argued that if most of the population were determined
to destroy the government and were willing to endure repression
to do so, then the might of the government, including those
who supported it, could not preserve the hated government, even if
20 Gene Sharp
8 Karl W. Deutsch, “Cracks in the Monolith,” in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Totalitarianism
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), pp. 313-314.
it received foreign assistance. The defiant people could not be forced
back into permanent obedience and subjection, Austin concluded.9
Niccolo Machiavelli had much earlier argued that the prince
“. . . who has the public as a whole for his enemy can never make
himself secure; and the greater his cruelty, the weaker does his regime
become.”10
The practical political application of these insights was demonstrated
by the heroic Norwegian resisters against the Nazi occupation,
and as cited in Chapter One, by the brave Poles, Germans,
Czechs, Slovaks, and many others who resisted Communist aggression
and dictatorship, and finally helped produce the collapse of
Communist rule in Europe. This, of course, is no new phenomenon:
cases of nonviolent resistance go back at least to 494 B.C. when plebeians
withdrew cooperation from their Roman patrician masters.11
Nonviolent struggle has been employed at various times by peoples
throughout Asia, Africa, the Americas, Australasia, and the Pacific
islands, as well as Europe.
Three of the most important factors in determining to what
degree a government’s power will be controlled or uncontrolled
therefore are: (1) the relative desire of the populace to impose limits
on the government’s power; (2) the relative strength of the subjects’
independent organizations and institutions to withdraw collectively
the sources of power; and (3) the population’s relative ability to withhold
their consent and assistance.