Does Violence Work? The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Picture this: You are living under brutal oppression. Your people are being killed, enslaved, or systematically denied basic rights. You have tried peaceful protests. You have tried petitions. You have tried negotiations. Nothing has worked. The oppressor mocks your nonviolence. What do you do? Do you pick up arms and fight? Or do you continue turning the other cheek while your community suffers?
This is not a hypothetical dilemma. This is the reality millions have faced throughout history. And the answer to whether violence "works" is extremely and frustratingly complex: sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Welcome to the most uncomfortable conversation in political philosophy: Does violence actually achieve liberation? Or does nonviolence work better?
Let us dive into the good, the bad, and the very ugly truth about violence, resistance and liberation.
The Case for Nonviolence: When Peace Proves Powerful
Before we get into the messy examples where violence seemed necessary, let us acknowledge something remarkable: statistically, nonviolence works better than violence. And we have the data to prove it.
The Chenoweth-Stephan Study: Numbers Do Not Lie
In 2011, political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan published "Why Civil Resistance Works," a groundbreaking study that analyzed 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006. The results were stunning:
- Nonviolent campaigns succeeded 53% of the time
- Violent campaigns succeeded only 26% of the time
- Nonviolent resistance was more than twice as effective as armed resistance
Even more remarkably, Chenoweth discovered the "3.5% rule": every campaign that mobilized at least 3.5% of the population in active sustained participation succeeded. Not most. Every single one. However, she later clarified that while mass participation significantly increases the likelihood of success, it is a "rule of thumb," not an iron law, and exceptions have been identified.
Why does nonviolence work so well?
Lower barriers to participation: You do not need to be young, strong, or willing to die to join a protest, boycott, or strike. Women, elderly people, children and people with disabilities can participate. This creates massive movements.
-
Moral legitimacy: Nonviolent movements attract sympathy from neutral observers and even from within the oppressor's ranks. International opinion favors the oppressed.
-
Tactical innovation: Nonviolent movements can use strikes, boycotts, sit ins and civil disobedience. Violence offers fewer tactical options: you fight, you hide, you run.
-
Defections from the regime: When movements are nonviolent, security forces and elites are more likely to defect. When movements turn violent, it justifies crackdowns and unites the regime.
-
Better post conflict outcomes: Countries that transitioned through nonviolent resistance were 10 times more likely to become democracies compared to violent transitions. Violent revolutions often produce authoritarian successors.
The data is clear. Nonviolence, statistically, works better. But statistics do not tell the whole story. The famous quote of "correlation is not causation" can be remembered.
India's Independence: When Nonviolence Triumphed
India's independence movement is often held up as the gold standard of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi pioneered satyagraha, a philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience. Through massive campaigns like the Salt March of 1930, boycotts of British goods and refusal to cooperate with colonial administration, India made British rule unsustainable.
By 1947, Britain, bankrupt after World War II and facing an empire in rebellion, granted India independence. Nonviolence worked! Gandhi is celebrated worldwide as proof that peaceful resistance can topple empires.
But let us complicate this narrative. Several factors contributed to British withdrawal:
- World War II bankrupted Britain, making colonial administration financially impossible.
- The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946 showed that even the military was turning against colonial rule.
- Armed resistance groups like the Quit India Movement's underground networks did engage in sabotage and violence.
- International pressure, especially from the United States and Soviet Union, opposed colonialism.
Gandhi's nonviolence was crucial, but it was not the only factor. And India paid a horrific price: Partition killed millions in communal violence. Was this the outcome of nonviolence succeeding? Or was violence always lurking beneath the surface?
The US Civil Rights Movement: Nonviolence Under Fire
The American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s is another celebrated example of nonviolent resistance. Martin Luther King Jr. led campaigns of sit ins, freedom rides and marches that exposed the brutality of segregation to the world.
The images of police dogs attacking Black children in Birmingham, Alabama and police beating peaceful marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, shocked the nation. Public opinion shifted. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed.
Nonviolence worked! But again, the full picture is more complex:
- The threat of violence mattered. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers advocated armed self defense. The government feared urban riots and Black radicalization. King's nonviolence looked like the moderate, acceptable option compared to Malcolm X's "by any means necessary."
- Riots did occur. After King's assassination in 1968, over 100 US cities erupted in violence. Some argue these uprisings forced the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
- The movement had armed protectors. During the Freedom Rides, armed Black men guarded activists from KKK attacks. Nonviolent protesters relied on people willing to use violence for their defense.
- "In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none," famously said by a prominent Black Power Leader, Kwame Ture, who strongly challenged Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent approach.
.jpg){kind=link}
Scholar Omar Wasow found that nonviolent protests increased Democratic vote share in nearby communities, while violent protests increased Republican vote share and white backlash. Nonviolence was strategically superior. But the presence of armed resistance and the threat of riots created political pressure that nonviolence alone might not have generated.
The Anti Apartheid Movement: A Mixed Strategy
South Africa's anti apartheid struggle combined nonviolent and violent resistance. The African National Congress, led by Nelson Mandela, initially pursued nonviolent protest. After the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960, when police killed 69 unarmed protesters, the ANC formed an armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, to conduct sabotage.
International sanctions, boycotts, and divestment campaigns applied nonviolent economic pressure. Meanwhile, armed resistance and township uprisings made South Africa ungovernable. By 1990, the apartheid regime negotiated.
Which tactic worked? Both. Mandela himself said: "I called for nonviolent protest for as long as it was effective... The attacks of the wild beast cannot be averted with only bare hands."
Eastern European Revolutions: When Dictators Just Gave Up
The 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe offer perhaps the strongest case for nonviolence. Poland's Solidarity movement, Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution and East Germany's peaceful protests toppled communist regimes without firing a shot.
Why did nonviolence work here?
- Soviet Union was collapsing. Gorbachev's reforms meant Moscow would not send tanks to crush dissent like in 1956 Hungary or 1968 Czechoslovakia during the Prague spring.
- Economic collapse made regimes unsustainable
- Mass mobilization showed regimes had lost legitimacy
- Security forces refused to shoot because the protests were peaceful
These were textbook examples of nonviolent success. But they happened in a unique historical moment when the superpower backing these regimes was itself disintegrating.
When Nonviolence Failed: The Tiananmen Square Massacre
Now let us talk about when nonviolence catastrophically failed.
In April 1989, Chinese students gathered in Beijing's Tiananmen Square to mourn the death of reformist leader Hu Yaobang. The gathering turned into a massive pro democracy protest. By mid May, over one million people filled the square. They were peaceful. They were organized. They demanded political reform, an end to corruption, and freedom of speech.
The Chinese government's response? On the night of June 3 to 4, 1989, the People's Liberation Army rolled tanks into Beijing and opened fire on unarmed civilians.
The death toll is disputed. China claims around 200. Western estimates range from hundreds to thousands. Some estimates suggest up to 10,000 killed. Tens of thousands were arrested. Protest leaders fled or were imprisoned.
What happened to the Chenoweth Stephan statistics here? Why did nonviolence fail so spectacularly?
Because the regime was willing to massacre its own people, and no one stopped them. The international community condemned China. The US imposed sanctions. And then... business resumed. Today, China is the world's second largest economy and a permanent UN Security Council member. The Tiananmen protesters achieved nothing except their own deaths.
The lesson? Nonviolence works when the oppressor has limits. When facing a regime willing to commit mass murder without fear of consequences, nonviolence becomes a death sentence.
This is the uncomfortable truth that Chenoweth's statistics do not capture: survivor bias. We study the movements that succeeded because their oppressors had boundaries. We forget the movements crushed so thoroughly that no one remembers them.
When Violence Worked: Liberation Through Arms
Now let us look at cases where violence actually achieved liberation.
World War II: When Violence Was Necessary
The Allies did not defeat Nazi Germany through peace negotiations and sit ins. They did it through the largest and deadliest war in human history. 50 to 85 million people died. Entire cities were reduced to rubble. The Holocaust killed 6 million Jews, along with millions of Roma, disabled people, Slavs and others.
Could nonviolence have stopped Hitler? No. Let us be absolutely clear: no!
Hitler's ideology was eliminationist. He did not view Jews, Slavs, Roma, Black people and others as fully human. His goal was their extermination, not their subjugation. There was no bargaining, no moral appeal, no civil disobedience that would make Nazis say, "You know what, maybe genocide is wrong."
Gandhi himself made the catastrophic error of suggesting that Jews should practice nonviolent resistance against the Nazis. In 1938, he wrote: "But the Jews of Germany can offer Satyagraha under infinitely better auspices than the Indians of South Africa."
This advice, if followed, would have resulted in the complete annihilation of European Jewry. Gandhi fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Nazi ideology. The British colonizers in India, for all their brutality, still operated within a framework where moral appeals and economic pressure mattered. The Nazis operated in a framework where entire peoples were marked for extermination.
Violence was not just justified against the Nazis. It was morally necessary. Anyone claiming otherwise should ask themselves: if they lived in 1944 and had a chance to kill Hitler, would they do it? If the answer is yes, they accept that sometimes violence is the answer.
The American Civil War: Ending Slavery Through Bloodshed
The United States did not end slavery through abolitionists' moral appeals alone. Slavery ended because the Union Army crushed the Confederacy in the bloodiest war in American history. 620,000 to 750,000 soldiers died. Countless civilians perished.
Abraham Lincoln tried political solutions first. He offered compensation to slave states for gradual emancipation. He proposed colonization schemes. He prioritized preserving the Union over ending slavery initially. None of it worked. The slaveholding South was determined to preserve the institution, and they went to war over it.
Slavery ended because Union soldiers, including 180,000 Black soldiers, fought and died to destroy it. Frederick Douglass, himself a formerly enslaved person, celebrated this violence: "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time; but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery; and that it can never be effectually put down till one or the other of these."
Sometimes liberation requires bloodshed. That is an ugly truth, but a truth nonetheless.
When Violence Backfired Catastrophically
But violence is not a guaranteed path to liberation. In fact, it often makes things immeasurably worse.
The French Revolution: From Liberty to Terror to Dictatorship
The French Revolution began with Enlightenment ideals: liberty, equality, fraternity. It ended in the Reign of Terror, where revolutionaries guillotined tens of thousands, including many fellow revolutionaries. Robespierre, the architect of the Terror, was himself executed.
The Revolution devoured its children. And what came after? Napoleon Bonaparte, who crowned himself the Emperor and dragged Europe into wars that killed millions. France went from monarchy to republic to terror to dictatorship to restored monarchy.
Did violence work? In overthrowing the old regime, yes. In creating a better society? Catastrophically no.
The Russian Revolution: From Czar to Stalin
The Russian Revolution of 1917 overthrew the Czar. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin promised "peace, land, and bread." What they delivered was:
- A brutal civil war killing millions
- The red terror
- Stalin's purges executing or imprisoning millions more
- The Holodomor, a man made famine in Ukraine killing 3.5 to 5 million
- The Gulag system of labor camps
- Decades of totalitarian oppression
Lenin's revolution promised liberation. Stalin's tyranny was worse than the Czar. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and Russia today is an authoritarian state.
Violence worked in seizing power. But the revolution failed in every meaningful sense. The people did not gain freedom. They traded one oppressor for a worse one. But hey, at least the USSR was a superpower because of Stalin (which doesn't even matter)?
The Syrian Civil War: When Everyone Loses
The Arab Spring began with hope. In Tunisia and Egypt, nonviolent mass protests toppled dictators. But in Syria, protests turned into civil war.
Bashar al Assad's regime used chemical weapons, barrel bombs and mass torture against its own people. Rebel groups fractured into competing factions. ISIS emerged, committing horrendous atrocities. Foreign powers intervened, turning Syria into a proxy battleground.
The result? Around 580,000 to 650,000 dead. 13 million displaced. Cities reduced to rubble. The Syrian people lost everything.
Violence did not liberate Syria. It destroyed it.
The Gendered Dimension of Violence
Violence and nonviolence have profoundly gendered impacts that are rarely discussed.
Women Bear the Burden of War
In every conflict, violent or nonviolent, women suffer disproportionately:
- Rape as a weapon of war: In the Bangladesh Liberation War, 200,000 to 400,000 women were systematically raped. In the Rwandan Genocide, hundreds of thousands of women were raped. In the Syrian Civil War, sexual violence is widespread.
- Displacement: Women make up the majority of refugees and internally displaced people. They flee violence, only to face sexual violence in refugee camps.
- Loss of male family members: When men are killed in war, women become widows and single mothers, facing economic hardship and social stigma.
- Destruction of healthcare and infrastructure: Women face maternal mortality crises when hospitals are destroyed. Access to contraception and menstrual products disappears.
When men debate whether violence is justified for liberation, they rarely consider that women will bear the greatest costs. Women's bodies become battlegrounds.
Women in Nonviolent Movements
Nonviolent movements offer lower barriers to women's participation. Women can protest, organize boycotts, and engage in civil disobedience without needing physical combat training.
In India's independence movement, women participated en masse. In the US Civil Rights Movement, women like Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker were central organizers. In the anti apartheid struggle, women led township resistance.
But women's participation is often erased from history. We remember Gandhi and King, not the thousands of women who made their movements possible.
The Class Dimension: Who Fights, Who Profits
Violence also has a class dimension. In armed conflicts:
- The poor fight. The rich send them.
- The working class dies. The elites profit from war industries.
- Veterans return to poverty. War contractors become billionaires.
The Iraq War cost the US $2 trillion and killed hundreds of thousands. Who profited? Defense contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. Who died? Mostly working class American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians.
Revolutionary violence often claims to fight for the working class. But who suffers most when revolutions turn violent? The poor. The French and Russian Revolutions killed more peasants and workers than nobles.
The Moral Calculus: When Is Violence Justified?
So when, if ever, is violence morally justified? Philosophers have debated this for centuries. Here is one framework:
Violence May Be Justified When:
- The oppression is eliminationist. If the goal is your complete extermination (like the Holocaust), nonviolence is a voluntary suicide.
- Nonviolent options have been exhausted. If decades of peaceful protest achieve nothing and oppression intensifies.
- The violence is defensive. Protecting yourself or others from immediate harm.
- The violence targets the oppressor, not innocents. Blowing up a Nazi munitions factory is different from blowing up a café.
- There is a realistic chance of success. Doomed violence that only brings more suffering is not liberation.
Violence Is NOT Justified When:
- Nonviolent alternatives remain viable. If peaceful resistance is working, violence undercuts it.
- It targets civilians. Terrorism against innocent people is never liberation. This is the reason why Hamas gets little support from the people despite strong pro-Palestine sentiments.
- It is likely to produce worse oppression. If your violent revolution will install a Stalin or a Taliban, congratulations. You have achieved nothing.
- It is performative rather than strategic. Violence as revenge does not liberate anyone.
The truth is, there are no clean answers. Every situation is different. Every oppressed group must make impossible choices with incomplete information.
The Critique of Privileged Pacifism
We must also address the elephant in the room: who gets to preach nonviolence?
When wealthy Western activists lecture oppressed people to practice nonviolence, it reeks of privilege. It is easy to advocate for peace when you are not the one facing extinction. Gandhi's advice to Jews to practice nonviolence against Nazis was offered from the safety of India, not from inside a concentration camp.
Similarly, when Americans tell Palestinians to practice nonviolence while Israel receives billions in military aid, or when they tell victims of police brutality to protest peacefully while police kill with impunity, it rings hollow.
Oppressed people do not owe their oppressors nonviolence. If someone is trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. Full stop.
At the same time, strategic nonviolence often works better than violence. This is not a moral claim. It is a practical one. The question is: "will violence achieve liberation, or will it bring more suffering?"
Final Thoughts
Does violence work? Sometimes. Does nonviolence work? Often. The truth is messier than either pacifists or revolutionaries want to admit.
Nonviolence, statistically, achieves liberation more often than violence. Chenoweth's research is clear on this. Nonviolent movements mobilize more people, attract broader support, cause defections from the regime and produce more stable democracies afterward.
But nonviolence is not magic. It works when oppressors have limits, when international pressure matters, when security forces can be swayed. Against regimes willing to commit genocide without fear of consequences, nonviolence becomes martyrdom.
Violence can work. It ended slavery in America. It defeated the Nazis. It has achieved liberation in some contexts. But violence often backfires catastrophically. The French and Russian Revolutions turned into bloodbaths. The Syrian Civil War destroyed the country. Revolutionary violence frequently produces dictatorships worse than what came before.
The gendered and class dimensions of violence matter. Women and the poor suffer most from war, yet their voices are excluded from debates about whether violence is justified. Men in power decide to go to war. Women's bodies become battlegrounds.
Comments
Post a Comment