on peace n nonviolence

aka: Turtles Can Fly

Dir. Bahman Ghobadi

This film is the first to be made in Iraq after the fall of Saddam.  It’s mainly about children attempting to survive in an adult world on the eve of the US invasion of 2003.

(sumpah, buaguuuus banget… must see pokoknya… sinematografinya jempol, castingnya hebat, ceritanya insightful… film ini dengan lihainya merangkum berbagai macam tema, dari latar belakang perang, child labour, land mines, perdagangan senjata, motherhood, etc… masing2 tema ‘cuma’ disentuh sedikit, tapi dalam… one of the best movie i’ve ever seen)

“(The) key idea behind this theory is that liberation is not necessarily only the responsibility of the oppressed.  Intermediate groups, especially those that have an identification with both the oppressor and the oppressed, can play a key role.  Intermediate groups are links in the chain of nonviolence.  If the oppressed cannot through their own actions persuade the oppressors to change their views and actions, they may nevertheless be able to create sympathy among third parties who themselves have more influence with the oppressors.  Sometimes the chain will be a long one, with several intermediaries along the way between the oppressed and oppressor” (Galtung, cited in Martin and Varney 2003: 138).

A simple way to illustrate how nonviolence work is to see it as a jiu-jitsu: when used against opponents who are able and willing to use violent measures, it rebounds the violence against its perpetrator.  As the violence bounces back to the perpetrator, change becomes possible.

The ideological school believes that nonviolence works as a moral jiu-jitsu:  when faced with fearless, calm, steady, and nonviolent reactions, violence itself helps to overthrow its user.  The exponent of nonviolent action is superior to the attacker in at least three ways (Gregg 1935: 26).  Firstly, this person has taken a moral initiative, one which the opponent is not trained to respond to.  Secondly, this person knows what is really happening in such struggle and how to control the process.  Thirdly, this person’s self-control conserves his or her energy, while the opponent is exhausted by prolonged anger.  Thus, the opponent loses moral balance and starts questioning the appropriateness of his or her conduct.

Meanwhile, the pragmatic school sees nonviolence as a political jiu-jitsu, aiming at throwing an opponent off balance politically, allowing the repression to rebound against the perpetrator’s position and weakening his or her power.  As mentioned by  Sharp (1973: 109-113), “an extensive, determined and skilful application of nonviolent action” against “opponents who are able and willing to use violent means” will “disturb or frustrate the effective utilisation” of the opponents’ forces, alienate the general population from the opponent, as well as increase sympathy and support for the nonviolent action.  More specifically, he identified three groups that can be affected by such political jiu-jitsu:

“(1) the general grievance group and the usually smaller group of nonviolent resisters; (2) the opponents’ usual supporters, on various levels, including among the general population, the opponents’ functionaries, administrators, and enforcement agents, and at times even the top echelons of officials; (3) uncommitted third parties, whether on the local or world level” (Sharp 2005: 407). 

There are two main ‘schools’ of nonviolence: the ideological and the pragmatic. The ideological school believes that nonviolent actions are based on ethical reasons and the belief in the unity of means and ends.  Meanwhile, the pragmatic school sees that nonviolent actions are conducted upon the belief that they are the most effective method available in the circumstances. 

Moving from the binary model above, which sees nonviolence as either ideological or pragmatic, Weber and Burrowes developed a framework which incorporates a ‘tactical-strategic dimension’ into the existing ‘ideological-pragmatic dimension’.  While the ideological-pragmatic dimension shows the nature of commitment to nonviolence and the approach to conflict which the activists utilise, including the relationship between means and ends, the tactical-strategic dimension focuses on the depth of analysis, ultimate aim, and operational time-frame which activists use.

Tactical nonviolent actions are conducted through short to medium term campaigns to achieve certain goals within an existing social framework.  Meanwhile, strategic nonviolent actions are based on a structural analysis of social relationships and are concerned with the fundamental transformation of the society.  While tactical nonviolent actions seek reform, strategic nonviolent actions speak about long-term revolutionary strategy.

(taken from Weber and Burrowes, in Peace Dossier 1991)

Boserup and Mack (1974: 37-54), grouped nonviolent actions into: (1) symbolic actions, (2) denial activities, and (3) undermining activities. 

Symbolic activities are those aimed at providing the psychological basis for the resistance, giving emphasis on (a) demonstrating the unity and strength of the resistance, both to its exponents and opponents, and (b) delimiting the resistance group, and therefore forcing other parties to take a stand, either for or against. 

Denial activities are those aiming on preventing the opponent from achieving his or her initial objectives, conducted through (a) physical obstruction and sabotage, and/or (b) non cooperation. 

Undermining activities aim at undermining the opponent’s ability to continue the fight – splitting and weakening the opponent.  They focus on (a) seeking for the opponent’s conversion, (b) appealing to the opponent’s conscience, (c) splitting the opponent’s home front, and/or (d) mobilising international support. 

A successful nonviolent action brings about change through one of the following mechanisms: (1) coercion, (2) conversion, or (3) persuasion. 

Coercion is “taking away from the opponent either his ability to maintain the status quo or his ability to effect social change” (1962: 19).  The effectiveness of this mechanism depends on (a) how dependent the opponent is to the nonviolent exponent, and (b) the relation between the opponent and a third party (1962: 19). 

Conversion means that the opponent “comes around to a new point of view which embraces the ends of the nonviolent actor” (1962: 20).  While “coercive nonviolence undermines the opponent’s ability to resist the demands of the nonviolent actor, nonviolent conversion removes the opponent’s reason for resisting” (1962: 21). 

Persuasion refers to a condition where the opponent is not converted, but “accepts a new image of the nonviolent actor, an image which discourages the use of violence against him” (1962: 21).  It works when a nonviolent exponent manages to convince others that they are not appropriate targets for violent repression (1962: 22).  Being able to project a self-image as a ‘nuisance’, and not as a ‘threat’, a nonviolent exponent is close to a resolution of the conflict (1962: 23).

The above mechanisms were adopted and slightly modified by Sharp (1973: 705-776) into (1) coercion, (2) conversion, and (3) accommodation (Randle 2002: 79).  In a later publication, Sharp (cited in Randle 2002: 79-80) introduced another mechanism, labelled as disintegration, which refers to “a situation where the opponent’s power structure collapses altogether under the pressure of civil resistance”.