Confronting Violent Suppression

... I don't think we'd need violence as a response. It's getting to that point that's the issue.

You're digging deeper into the news and reading about the very real possibility that the same government the Occupy movement is hoping to change through non-violent protest is likely arming and aiding the very violent wing of the Syrian resistance.

It was a peaceful uprising for a very, very short time. It is an armed revolution now, and - more importantly - it is effectively a proxy war. It is also, and always has been, almost an entirely sectarian uprising.

Nir Rosen has done a good job covering it, and he does so from a point of view that is clearly pro-uprising ... or at least anti-regime.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast...

http://www.nirrosen.com/blog/

There are some telling quotes in Rosen's coverage, like revolutionary leadership saying that they should have gone to violent insurgency immediately rather than even trying nonviolent protest. By which we can assume means not just violent confrontation with security forces but also assassination and car bombings. (Aleppo, that the FSA originally said they were responsible for and then said that they weren't)

It might be wise to not draw conclusions from situations that only seem similar if they're looked at very shallowly, based on news reporting that is almost certainly slanted to give the impression desired by one actor in a proxy war.

Note: it never ceases to surprise me how people will be distrustful of news sources until those sources tell them what they want to hear.

Off-hand, I can't think of any massive nonviolent protests in American history that were met with violent suppression. I don't see how any parallels can be drawn between societies in which these kinds of events occur and this country. If such an event were to happen in this country, though, my prediction is that everyone would go home and meekly comply with the authorities. There would be no response.

That's what the literature on backfire is about. Backfire occurs when the outcome from an action is negative, i.e., worse for the people acting than doing nothing. The people resisting want to create or increase backfire; the people attacking want to prevent or minimize it.

To create backfire, you need [PDF] (1) a perception of something as unjust, unfair, disproportionate, or otherwise in violation of a social norm—a heavy, military crackdown on nonviolent protests seems like the normative case—and (2) communication to receptive audiences.

Attackers (those perpetrating the crackdown) will try to inhibit or prevent backfire. To counter the ways in which they’ll do that, you “increase the outrage” with some countermeasures [PDF]; you

• Expose the action (to counter a cover-up)
• Validate the target (to counter a devaluation of the target)
• Emphasize the injustice (to counter reinterpretation such as excuses or minimizing the consequences)
• Mobilize public support and avoid or discredit official channels (to counter the official channels that will try to give the appearance of justice)
• Resist and expose intimidation and bribery (to counter attempts to silence those involved in the crackdown)

That’s, of course, a very generic answer and we can all haggle over the likelihood or feasibility of the specifics but it’s a starting point. (I don’t know if nonviolent resisters typically plan consciously employ these countermeasures in advance of an attack but it would be nice to think that they did.)

Brian Martin’s Justice Ignited: The Dynamics of Backfire, which talks about how to respond to acts of injustice (such as a heavy military crackdown on nonviolent protesters), is available online [in pre-publication form] here.