1

It is wrong to argue that nonviolent approach is always a guarantee of success. However,

well prepared and correctly employed nonviolent action can be a very effective to tool to fight

for people’s freedom, justice, and equality.

Nonviolence can be defined as “a set of attitudes, actions, or behaviors intended to

persuade the other side to change its opinions, perceptions and actions.”1 Historically, the

approach was often used when discriminated or oppressed people struggled with unjust

authorities. For instance, in South Africa, many black protesters rose against the country’s

apartheid regime, which pursued the policy of ‘white supremacy.’ Although nonviolent practices

have been used for centuries, this method gained particular attention when Gandhi led the

nonviolent movement against the British colonial rules in India. Martin Luther King also took a

similar step to resist against systemic discrimination against African Americans in the United

States in 1960s. In fact, nonviolent action is a generic term; there is a wide variety of forms

within nonviolence. Gene Sharp, the most renowned scholar in this subject, divides the methods

of nonviolence action into three large categories: (1) protest and persuasion, such as marches,

picketing, and other symbolic acts, (2) disobedience and non-cooperation, including boycotts and

strikes, and (3) nonviolent intervention, such as fasts, sit-ins, land seizures.2

Nonviolent action directly challenges a conventional realist view that superior violence

always succeeds. Rather, it suggests that the oppressive authority can be tamed by demonstrating

that its repression is incapable of stopping just protestors. In this sense, the use of nonviolence is

based on the assumption that violence is not the way to end violence. In fact, advocates of

nonviolence argue that violence creates another violence, which leads to more violence, and so

one. This vicious cycle can be only broken if a group of people stand out with nonviolent action.
1
Lecture note, “Conflict Resolution through Grassroots Organization and Nonviolence,” page 8
2
Gene Sharp, “The Politics of Nonviolent Action,” Part II: page 117-435.
 2

In addition, another important assumption of nonviolence is that ethnical ends must be achieved

through ethnical means. Regarding this concept, Martin Luther King once remarked that

"...nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."3 King

claims that it is fundamentally irrational and illogical to use violence to achieve a peaceful

society. Moreover, proponents of nonviolence assume that political power is not intrinsic to the

power-holder, but it comes from people’s consent,4 and people are free to withdraw their

consents whenever they feel it is necessary. In fact, Sharp puts strong emphasis on this

assumption and argues that nonviolence is a legitimate way of displaying people’s withdrawal of

consent from their unjust rulers.5

One of several strengths of nonviolent action is that it usually wins more support than

violence does. Typically, when a group of individuals participate in nonviolent movement, the

oppressive regime begins using violence to repress the activities. This situation often not only

evokes the third party’s sympathetic feelings, but also alienates potential supporters from the

violent regime. For example, during the civil rights movement in the United States, one of the

major turning points was when the police used fire hoses and police dogs on African-American

demonstrators. These images of brutality, which were televised and published widely, helped

American black community gain sympathy from the international community.6 Another notable

advantage of using nonviolence is that the movement allows widespread participation. Usually,

only young males are able to join the armed liberation movement, whereas women, children,

elderly, and even disabled people can organize and participate in nonviolent movement.

3
Martin Luther King, “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” Class Reading, page 301
4
Sharp, “the Politics,” page 11
5
Sharp, “the Politics,” page 25-30
6
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html
 3

According to Sharp, the success of nonviolence action can come in four ways. The first,

which is the least likely taking place, is conversion, which refers to changes of attitude lead the

opponents to make concessions voluntarily because it is right to do so. The second way is

accommodation, the withdrawal of economic or political cooperation forces the opponents to

agree to a compromise. Another form of success is nonviolent coercion, which refers to the

situation where the sources of the opponents have been left with no option but to capitulate.

Lastly, there are some rare instances in which the defiance and noncooperation are so massive,

and the severance of the sources of the opponents’ power is so complete, that the regime simply

falls apart, which is known as disintegration.7

Despite many famous success stories, the world history also demonstrates many incidents

where nonviolent campaigns failed miserably. Mostly, the failure came because most nonviolent

movements arouse spontaneously, without proper preparation and training. In fact, it is often

believed that nonviolence action takes more time and resources to prepare than violence does. In

this matter, Sharp does a good job in outlining ways to accomplish success in nonviolent action.

According to this prominent researcher, successful nonviolent campaigns always include well-

designed strategic planning. The preparation includes examining issues and contexts of the

situation, and developing clear objectives and a grand strategy. In addition, the leadership needs

to inspire and train the participants effectively, so that they can confront fear and anger during

the actual demonstration. Also, the significant amount of time has to be spent to learn about the

opponent’s objectives, main targets, tactics, and strengths and weaknesses. When the actual

action begins, nonviolent leaders have to ensure that the resisters are acting based upon the

7
Gene Sharp, “There are Realistic Alternatives,” Class Reading, page 13
 4

nonviolence principle. Also, it has to continuously reassess and evaluate the conduct of the

struggle according to the strategic plan.8

In my opinion, human needs and enemy image are the two most critical social-

psychological factors that need to be addressed in order to establish sustainable peace.

8
Ideas are extracted from Sharp “the Politics,” Sharp “Realistics,” and Lecture note
 5

Human needs, in the context of the conflict resolution, refer to essentials that human

beings ought to have for survival. These needs include not only material ones, such as food,

shelters, and water, but also psychological factors, such as identity, security, love, and self-

esteem; yet, in most cases, both physical and psychological needs are combined as one. People

often confuse needs with interests, but they are totally different concepts. Usually, an individual

need lies behind one’s interest. For example, it is one’s interest to buy pizza, but it is his need not

to feel hungry. John Burton points out that unlike interests, human needs are ontological,

fundamental, and therefore nonnegotiable.9 Using the previous example again, one may negotiate

to buy hamburger instead of pizza, but he will never give up his desire to feel full.

Human needs theorists, such as John Burton and Herbert Kelman, believe that

nonfulfillment, or threats to the fulfillment of basic needs, causes international conflict. Since

these needs are ontological, fundamental, and nonnegotiable, nonfulfillment of them creates

frustration, which subsequently leads to violence. Therefore, any attempt to establish peace

should address the issue of human needs.

In fact, failing to fulfill human needs contribute to not only causes of conflict, but also the

escalation and perpetuation of conflicts. 10 According to Kelman, primary actors in a prolonged

conflict often resist to engage in the peace process, even when they are at the mutually hurting

stalemate point, because they mistakenly believe that basic needs are inherently zero-sum. What

this means is that one party may think that its identity and security needs can be satisfied only by

depriving those of another. This belief forces the involving actors to continue to fight even in

situations in which both parties have concluded that it is in their best interests to end the conflict.

For instance, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel keeps attacking the Palestine because it
9
Lecture note, “Social Psychological Factors,” page 8
10
Herbert Kelman, “Applying a Human needs perspective to the Pracatice of Conflict Resolution: The Israeli-
Palestinian Case,” Class Reading, page 284
 6

believes that the security and identity of Jews can be enhanced only when the Palestinians fail to

satisfy their needs, and vice versa.

However, according to human needs theorists, ontological needs are not zero-sum, but

actually positive-sum in nature. In other words, the establishment of the other’s identity does not

diminish one’s own identity.11 It is certainly possible to create solution that satisfies fundamental

needs of both parties. For example, a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is

specifically designed to satisfy identity and security needs of both Israelis as well as Palestinians.

The proposal does not address the both sides’ security and identity needs perfectly, but neither

side is required to sacrifice what it considers to be vital needs.12 This is why the two-state

solution is often called as a win-win solution. In order to come up with this kind of solution

addressing the both sides’ concerns, it is important to use the feeling of empathy, which can be

defined as taking the perspective of the other. Anyone trying to draft a win-win solution should

be able to put himself in the shoes of both involving parties, so that he can find out what are their

core and urgent needs that have to be satisfied.

Another important social-psychological factor that this paper will shed light on is the

construction of enemy image. It is human beings natural tendency to view ‘we’ as peaceful and

good actors, while considering ‘they’ as warlike and evil during the time of war. People create

various hostile images of opponents in order to not only legitimize, but also stimulate their brutal

activities in the battles. In this context, the construction of enemy image tends to cause more

violence, which escalates the conflict.

Of many different ways to form the image of the enemy, one of the most common

methods is the process of dehumanization. During the conflict, members of hostile groups often

11
Kelman, “Applying a Human needs perspective, ” Page 290
12
Herbert Kelman, “Social-Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict,” Class Reading, Page 67
 7

see each as bestial and subhuman. Sometimes, a leader of certain group deliberately uses this

method of dehumanization to encourage his members to massacre the opponents. For example, it

is widely known that Rabbis, who have strong beliefs in religious Zionism, continue to

indoctrinate their followers that Palestinians are equivalent to animals and insects, and therefore

it is okay to slaughter them. Another problematic way is to view the opponent as the enemy of

our God. Once a certain group of people begins to believe that they are fighting for their God, the

war suddenly becomes “a crusade, a ‘just’ war, a battle between good and evil.”13 According to

Sam Keen, the prominent scholar in this subject, people picture the enemy as the enemy of God

to “convert the guilt associated with murder into pride.”14 Leaders of most religious extremists

groups regularly exploit this process to inspire their disciples to engage in erroneous and cruel

activities, such as suicide bombings.

Once the enemy image is constructed, it is very difficult to be completely removed from

people’s mind. The fact that stereotypes against the Soviet Union and Communism still exist in

Americans’ minds even twenty years after the end of the Cold War proves this point. As a matter

of fact, the only way to eliminate false and exaggerated enemy image is through physical

contacts between the primary actors. For example, peace building activities such as dialogues

and problem-solving workshops, where the primary actors can physically meet and talk to one

another, are likely to revise their enemy image. Or, one party can actually visit another and prove

the falsehood of the constructed image of itself. This was happened when Egyptian President

Anwar Sadat visited Jerusalem. His unexpected visit allowed Israelis to correct some of wrong

information about the opponent leader. The similar effects were carried out when Gorbachev

went to the United States, and South Korean leader Kim Dae-Jung visited Pyongyang.

13
Sam Keen, “Faces of the Enemy,” Class Reading, Page 408
14
Ibid, page 408-409
8