Watermelon Man
5th March 2011, 04:32
I've been hearing stories that, in preparation to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt, opposition groups had been studying the work of Gene Sharp on non-violent struggles and revolutions, as well as working with the leaders of Otpor and Pora who had used the same theoretical work to inform their uprising in Serbia in 2000. I have heard that translated copies of Sharp's list of non-violent weapons' were making their way through Tahrir Square during its occupation. I'm just going to copy and paste the section from Wikipedia about Sharp's ideas - it seems fairly correct:
Gene Sharp described the sources of his ideas as in-depth studies of Mohandas K. Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau to a minor degree, and other sources footnoted in his 1973 book "The Politics of Nonviolent Action", which was based on his 1968 PhD thesis. In the book, he provides a pragmatic political analysis of nonviolent action as a method for applying power in a conflict.
Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state - regardless of its particular structural organization - ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power.
In Sharp's view all effective power structures have systems by which they encourage or extract obedience from their subjects. States have particularly complex systems for keeping subjects obedient. These systems include specific institutions (police, courts, regulatory bodies) but may also involve cultural dimensions that inspire obedience by implying that power is monolithic (the god cult of the Egyptian pharaohs, the dignity of the office of the President, moral or ethical norms and taboos). Through these systems, subjects are presented with a system of sanctions (imprisonment, fines, ostracism) and rewards (titles, wealth, fame) which influence the extent of their obedience.
Sharp identifies this hidden structure as providing a window of opportunity for a population to cause significant change in a state. Sharp cites the insight of Étienne de La Boétie, that if the subjects of a particular state recognize that they are the source of the state's power they can refuse their obedience and their leader(s) will be left without power.
Sharp published Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential in 2005. It builds on his earlier written works by documenting case studies where non violent action has been applied, and the lessons learned from those applications, and contains information on planning nonviolent struggle to make it more effective.
To me it seems that Sharp's 'method' for a revolution is reflected in miniature in worker's strikes. An employers power is derived from his or her 'subjects' - the workers - and a strike is, in essence, a denial of that power. Workers have for decades recognised something along the lines of 'without us, you're screwed'. But of course, employers and states have attempted to curtail the effect of the strike by training non-union employees - witness the influential strikes on Melbourne's docks a while ago, during which the companies involved trained a skeleton workforce, in secret, in Dubai. Mubarak's demise seems similar - the populace denied the legitimacy of his power; he stepped down. Crucially, Mubarak lost his military power. In the Melbourne dockland strikes, on the other hand, the company hobbled along with its back-up workers. It seems that struggle of this kind rarely succeeds when the oppressor has a way of either forcing obedience or reinforcing power legitimacy - you disobey, I kill you; you deny me profits, I fire you and get more workers.
To what extent can the Sharp model be applied to statewide revolution? Clearly, we can find precedents on a small (strikes) and large (Egypt or Serbia) scale. But the large examples weren't necessarily socialist uprisings. Is the Sharp model a kind of blank canvass, applicable to any ideology or tendency, or will a 'true' socialist revolution never take place according to Sharp's method for some reason inherent in the socialist model?
Gene Sharp described the sources of his ideas as in-depth studies of Mohandas K. Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau to a minor degree, and other sources footnoted in his 1973 book "The Politics of Nonviolent Action", which was based on his 1968 PhD thesis. In the book, he provides a pragmatic political analysis of nonviolent action as a method for applying power in a conflict.
Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state - regardless of its particular structural organization - ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power.
In Sharp's view all effective power structures have systems by which they encourage or extract obedience from their subjects. States have particularly complex systems for keeping subjects obedient. These systems include specific institutions (police, courts, regulatory bodies) but may also involve cultural dimensions that inspire obedience by implying that power is monolithic (the god cult of the Egyptian pharaohs, the dignity of the office of the President, moral or ethical norms and taboos). Through these systems, subjects are presented with a system of sanctions (imprisonment, fines, ostracism) and rewards (titles, wealth, fame) which influence the extent of their obedience.
Sharp identifies this hidden structure as providing a window of opportunity for a population to cause significant change in a state. Sharp cites the insight of Étienne de La Boétie, that if the subjects of a particular state recognize that they are the source of the state's power they can refuse their obedience and their leader(s) will be left without power.
Sharp published Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential in 2005. It builds on his earlier written works by documenting case studies where non violent action has been applied, and the lessons learned from those applications, and contains information on planning nonviolent struggle to make it more effective.
To me it seems that Sharp's 'method' for a revolution is reflected in miniature in worker's strikes. An employers power is derived from his or her 'subjects' - the workers - and a strike is, in essence, a denial of that power. Workers have for decades recognised something along the lines of 'without us, you're screwed'. But of course, employers and states have attempted to curtail the effect of the strike by training non-union employees - witness the influential strikes on Melbourne's docks a while ago, during which the companies involved trained a skeleton workforce, in secret, in Dubai. Mubarak's demise seems similar - the populace denied the legitimacy of his power; he stepped down. Crucially, Mubarak lost his military power. In the Melbourne dockland strikes, on the other hand, the company hobbled along with its back-up workers. It seems that struggle of this kind rarely succeeds when the oppressor has a way of either forcing obedience or reinforcing power legitimacy - you disobey, I kill you; you deny me profits, I fire you and get more workers.
To what extent can the Sharp model be applied to statewide revolution? Clearly, we can find precedents on a small (strikes) and large (Egypt or Serbia) scale. But the large examples weren't necessarily socialist uprisings. Is the Sharp model a kind of blank canvass, applicable to any ideology or tendency, or will a 'true' socialist revolution never take place according to Sharp's method for some reason inherent in the socialist model?