Peaceful solutions

The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, established at the University of Otago in 2009, combines multidisciplinary expertise and research on the global issues of development, peace-building and conflict transformation. Two of the centre's staff discuss the effectiveness of non-violence as a means of countering terrorism and repressive regimes.

RESPONSES TO TERRORISM

Professor Richard Jackson has a message for Western Governments: how they respond to terrorism often makes the situation worse and non-violent approaches are more likely to achieve a better outcome.

Deputy Director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Jackson is a leading figure in what has become known as “critical terrorism studies” undertaken by an international network of scholars, notably in Britain, Scandinavia, North America, Australia and New Zealand.

He explains that this arose as a sceptical response to the way the West reacted to the 9/11 terrorism attacks in the United States in 2001.

“We questioned the dominant approach, which was based on military suppression – the 'War on Terror' – and led directly to hundreds of thousands of people dying in Iraq and the proliferation of more terrorist groups.

“The current state of research tells us that peaceful non-violent approaches to terrorism are more likely to be successful in reducing terrorism than the militarised violent ones.”

Jackson asserts that enabling terrorist groups to join the political process works better.

“If you look at the deeper reasons why political violence emerges in the first place, you realise that there are political solutions.”

"Northern Ireland is an example where, if the British had kept pouring more troops in, and undertaken a 'War on Terror' approach, they would still be fighting and thousands more would be dead.”

He argues that the West could have applied the same lesson to the “War on Terror” in the Middle East.

“Whenever you look at the historical context in which groups such as ISIS emerge, you find that they represent a set of genuine grievances and are supported by a political constituency because they articulate a set of aspirations.

“It might not be that you negotiate directly with ISIS, but with all the groups that support ISIS, and ask them why they support ISIS and whether they could support another group who would back their aspirations.”

Jackson points to research on several thousand terrorist groups showing that only seven per cent were defeated by military action, 46 per cent ended their terror campaigns through incorporation into the political process, and the rest fractured or fizzled out.

Jackson has a particular research focus on the language of terrorism.

“The way we speak about terrorism determines how we think about it and that determines our response to it.

“I looked at hundreds of speeches and documents from the Bush administration and noticed that it is a very morally-infused language, which sees terrorism as a kind of evil. It is very difficult to do anything with evil except try to eradicate it and that is partly why the militaristic approach was taken.”

Jackson, who has written extensively on terrorism and is the founding editor of the Critical Studies in Terrorism journal, has taken on the marathon task of editing an international handbook of terrorism studies.

RESPONSES TO REPRESSION

Dr Charles Butcher has a similar message for movements seeking to overthrow repressive regimes: non-violent methods are more likely to succeed.

Butcher explains that his initial research on non-violent movements examined why they start.

“This came after the Arab Spring and there were a lot of people wondering why similar countries see large non-violent protest movements and other countries have violent civil wars.

“One of the main findings from that study is that more industrialised countries tend to see grievances expressed as protest movements, while less industrialised countries seem to see those grievances manifest as violent insurgency.”

Butcher says that another study, with PhD student Jonathan Sutton, has looked at why the repression of unarmed protestors sometimes leads to many more people joining the protest and sometimes to the collapse of the movement.

“We found that movements that had set up a pre-existing communications structure, such as an alterative radio station, were much better at mobilising after repression. One of the really interesting things was that all 14 movements that used new media, such as having an online presence, managed to mobilise after repression.”

Butcher asserts that non-violent protest movements are more likely not only to succeed in achieving their immediate aims, but also to ensure benefits that are more permanent.

“Movements that use non-violent tactics to prosecute their aims are much more likely to see stable democracies post conflict and are much less likely to experience another violent conflict.”

He cites as examples the contrasting experiences of Liberia, where a lengthy civil war produced another authoritarian regime, and Zambia, where a non-violent protest movement ousted a dictator and has since maintained a relatively stable democratic state.

Butcher says that further research points to the importance of trade union participation in protest movements.

“We found a strong correlation between the participation of national trade unions in protest movements and the likelihood that they succeed and democratise post conflict.”

He cites the example of Egypt, where trade unions were not prominent and the country ended up with a slightly more autocratic government. He contrasts this with the experience of Tunisia, where trade unions were instrumental in initiating and maintaining the protests, and spreading them from the capital to the regions, and the country managed to democratise and stay relatively democratic.

“One reason is that trade unions leverage a dependency with the state, so that when trade unions get on board, movements that don't use violence are able to impose costs on the government by withdrawing labour.

“Another reason is that trade unions are really good at withstanding very severe repression. They tend to be geographically dispersed, which makes it hard for the government to target just one individual or one location. Government repression is more costly and risky in this scenario.”

Butcher has made the research findings available though various journal articles and conference addresses.