IB Global Politics Understanding Non-violence: Key Definitions and Perspectives Notes

What is non-violence?

1. Non-violence is generally understood as the absence of physical violence
2. However, it is still a debated concept
3. The main disagreement is not over whether violence is absent, but over what counts as non-violent action and how non-violence should be practiced

Key questions in the non-violence debate

1. Can non-violence only be an active form of resistance, or can it also be passive?
2. Must non-violence be fully integrated into a person’s life, or can it be used pragmatically?
3. Can a movement still be considered non-violent if some members use violence?
4. Can sabotage or property destruction be part of non-violence?

Gene Sharp and non-violent action

1. Gene Sharp was a major theorist of non-violent action
2. He founded the Albert Einstein Institution, which studies non-violent action
3. Sharp emphasized that non-violence should not be misunderstood as weak, passive, or ineffective
4. He identified 198 methods of non-violent action
5. Sharp’s work focuses more on non-violent struggle as a political technique than on non-violence as a purely moral or religious principle

Sharp’s key arguments

1. Violence does not always work quickly
2. Non-violent struggle does not always take a long time
3. Non-violent struggle is not weak and can be very powerful
4. It can paralyze or even disintegrate a repressive regime
5. Non-violent struggle does not require a charismatic leader
6. It is a cross-cultural phenomenon
7. It does not require religious belief
8. It can succeed not only against democratic opponents, but sometimes even against brutal dictatorships
9. It is not only about “melting the hearts” of oppressors
10. It can work through pressure, disruption, and coercion

Active vs passive non-violence

1. One major debate is whether non-violence must be active
   1. Active non-violence includes:
      1. protests
      2. strikes
      3. boycotts
      4. civil disobedience
   2. Passive resistance includes:
      1. refusing military service
      2. refusing to follow state orders
      3. not paying taxes
      4. withdrawing cooperation

Sharp’s view on passive resistance

1. Sharp argued that passive resistance can be selective
2. For example, a person may refuse military service but still pay taxes
3. He suggested that if someone truly opposes an oppressive system, they may need to resist it more actively and broadly
4. This shows that Sharp favored organized non-violent action, not just isolated refusal

Principled vs pragmatic non-violence

Another key debate is whether non-violence is a moral principle or a practical strategy

Principled non-violence

1. Associated strongly with Mahatma Gandhi
2. Non-violence is a way of life
3. It is rooted in ethics, religion, or philosophy
4. It involves a deep commitment to not harming others
5. Some religious communities, such as Quakers and Mennonites, are often seen as examples of principled non-violence

Pragmatic non-violence

1. Associated more with Gene Sharp
2. Non-violence can be used because it is effective, not necessarily because it is a total moral belief
3. People who have used violence before can still choose non-violence as a political method
4. This makes non-violence more accessible and more widely usable in political struggles

Example

• Martin Luther King Jr. practiced non-violence
• He opposed the Vietnam War
• His opposition was not simply based on religious pacifism
• He argued that the war expanded American influence rather than defending people
• He also believed money spent on war should instead be used to build a fairer and more equal society

Religion and non-violence

1. Many people draw non-violent principles from religion or philosophy
2. Religious traditions such as:
   1. Christianity
   2. Hinduism
   3. Islam
3. All contain strands of non-violent teaching
4. For some people, this makes non-violence a matter of identity and belief, not just political strategy

Can a wider violent movement still include non-violence?

1. This is another important debate
2. Movements can use both:
   1. violent methods
   2. non-violent methods
3. This raises the question:
   1. if non-violent action is part of a broader violent struggle, is it still truly non-violent?

Case study

Kick Out Zwarte Piet campaign

• In the Netherlands, Kick Out Zwarte Piet (KOZP) has protested since 2014 against the practice of blackfaceduring a national festivity
• KOZP made it essential to remain non-violent
• Protesters still faced violence from:
  • police
  • political opponents
  • civilians
• Significance
  • One goal of many non-violent campaigns is to make the opponent “show their true nature”
  • When authorities or opponents respond violently, public sympathy may shift toward protesters
  • In this case:
    • the Dutch National Ombudsman criticized the police response to 2014 protests
    • some police violence was judged disproportionate
  • KOZP’s commitment to non-violence may have helped build public support
• Outcome
  • Public opinion did not immediately change completely
  • Many Dutch people did not initially see blackface as racist
  • However, the phenomenon has largely declined
  • In 2020, Prime Minister Mark Rutte publicly opposed it
  • The practice was not fully banned, but non-violent pressure helped make it more widely criticized

Case study

Timor-Leste Independence Movement

Timor-Leste independence movement

• After Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the Timorese independence movement fought for self-determination and independence.
• The movement used both violent and non-violent methods.
• Armed groups resisted Indonesian occupation, while other activists used protests, diplomacy, church networks, and international campaigning.
• This meant the struggle had both an armed front and a diplomatic front.
• Why it matters
  • Timor-Leste is a useful example because it shows that non-violence is not always separate from violence.
  • Non-violent activists helped expose human rights abuses and Indonesian repression to the international community.
  • These peaceful methods helped build sympathy, legitimacy, and foreign support for East Timorese independence.
  • This was especially important because international attention increased pressure on Indonesia.
• Link to the debate on non-violence
  • The case raises a key question:
    • Can actions be called non-violent if they are part of a movement that also uses violence?
  • On one side, the protests and diplomatic campaigns were clearly non-violent in method.
  • On the other side, some argue that because they were part of a broader struggle involving armed resistance, the movement cannot be seen as fully non-violent.
• Analytical point
  • Timor-Leste shows that non-violence can be a strategic tool within a wider resistance movement.
  • It also shows that non-violence is a contested concept, because movements are often mixed rather than purely peaceful or purely violent.

Sabotage and property destruction

1. Non-violent thinkers disagree on whether property destruction can count as non-violence
2. Gene Sharp did not include destruction of property among his methods of non-violent action
3. Others argue that if no person is physically harmed, property destruction may still fit within non-violence
4. One side argues:
   1. non-violence means no physical harm to humans
5. The other side argues:
   1. destroying property is still a form of violence because it uses force and intimidation

Case study

2019 El Ángel graffiti protest

2019 El Ángel graffiti protest

• In 2019, Mexican protesters sprayed graffiti on the Angel of Independence monument in Mexico City
• They were protesting:
  • gender-based violence
  • sexual assault by police
• Mainstream media often described this as:
  • vandalism
  • violence
• Protesters’ argument
  • Protesters argued that society cared more about damage to a monument than about violence against women and girls
  • This highlighted how media attention can focus more on property damage than on the original injustice being protested
• Aftermath
  • The government quickly put up wooden barriers and restored the monument
  • A group called Restauradoras con Glitter argued that the graffiti messages should be preserved as part of the monument’s history
  • Analysis suggested media attention to the spray-painting was far greater than attention given to the sexual violence being protested
• Significance
  • This case shows the difficulty of defining non-violence
  • If no person was physically harmed, some may still see the protest as non-violent
  • Others would argue that damage to property crosses the line into violence

Overall significance of non-violence

1. Non-violence remains an important instrumental tool for political change
2. It can:
   1. expose injustice
   2. create public sympathy
   3. pressure governments
   4. disrupt oppressive systems
3. It is not simply passive or weak
4. It can be powerful even when it does not involve physical force

Conclusion

1. Definition: absence of physical violence
2. Core debate: what actions count as non-violent?
3. Sharp: non-violence is strategic, powerful, and not necessarily religious
4. Gandhi: non-violence is a principled way of life
5. Main tension: peaceful resistance can still be forceful, disruptive, and politically effective
6. Case studies:
   1. Kick Out Zwarte Piet campaign
   2. El Ángel graffiti protest
   3. Timor-Leste independence movement