Excerpt from From Dictatorship to
Democracy by Gene Sharp
1
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.
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
However, this positive trend is tempered by the large numbers of people
still living under conditions of tyranny. As of 2008, 34 per cent 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.
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.
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 government, with
immense human suffering and social dislocation.
Even when successful, guerrilla struggles often have significant
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.
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 handpicked 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.
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;
•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 … Help 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.
2
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.
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.
Power and justice in negotiations
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?
“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 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.
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, tyrannies 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.
