The Science of Violent vs. Non-Violent Resistance
--
Recent calls by Columbia University students and faculty supporting violent resistance to the current occupation and wars in the Middle East have once again become an area of media focus and sharp division on our campus. Although violence often feels justified, necessary, and fitting with a sense of outrage against states that employ excessive violence to achieve their goals, does it work? Are violent forms of resistance by lower-power opponents actually effective in achieving their political objectives? Or might non-violent resistance prove a superior strategy?
First, let’s define terms. Most of us are all too familiar with violent resistance campaigns, such as the acts of heinous terrorism committed by Hamas in Israel on October 7th, 2023 or the alarming spikes in deadly rampages on Palestinians by Israeli Settlers in the West Bank. These strategies are centered on the use of physical force to threaten, intimidate, destabilize, deter, or otherwise influence their opponent.
Non-violence is the polar opposite. It is a long-term strategy for social and political change that seeks to achieve goals without using physical force. It relies on peaceful pressure methods such as protests, civil disobedience, boycotts, and other forms of non-cooperation to challenge power structures or unjust practices. It avoids inflicting physical harm, seeking to build a broad base of support, even among those sympathetic to the opponent. The goal is to win over opponents by appealing to their sense of justice, humanizing all parties involved, and fostering dialogue rather than conflict.
As Gene Sharp, a leading scholar on non-violent resistance, has written, “Non-violent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Non-violent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield powers effectively.” To this Ghandi adds, “Non-violence is a weapon of the strong.”
However, non-violence often has consequences. Martin Luther King stressed that when engaging in civil disobedience against unjust laws, one must willingly accept the consequences, including punishment, as a way to highlight the injustice and ultimately bring about change, demonstrating the highest respect for the law by openly breaking it with a clear conscience. He wrote from Birmingham jail, “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law as the rabid segregationist would do. This would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly . . . and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law.”
But ultimately which strategy is most effective — violent or non-violent resistance? Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan detailed in their book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, found that nonviolent campaigns are about twice as likely to succeed as violent ones. Their analysis of 323 major political campaigns between 1900 and 2006 showed that nonviolent movements achieved their goals nearly 53% of the time, compared to 26% for violent movements. Nonviolent movements are particularly effective in overthrowing authoritarian regimes, resisting occupation, or seeking self-determination.
The advantages of nonviolent campaigns extend beyond their comparative success rates. Chenoweth and Stephan’s research identified several key factors that make nonviolent resistance a powerful tool for change:
- Broad Participation: Nonviolent movements tend to attract a more diverse range of participants than violent campaigns, as the lower risks associated with nonviolent actions — such as protests, strikes, and boycotts — enable the involvement of various social groups, including women, children, and the elderly. This broad participation undermines the legitimacy of the regime and can weaken its support base, even eroding loyalty from essential institutions like the military or police.
- Less Severe Repression: When states resort to violence in response to peaceful protests, they often suffer a loss of legitimacy, both domestically and internationally. This phenomenon, known as “backfire,” can increase public support for the nonviolent movement, further empowering the resistance.
- Moral Validity: Nonviolent resistance is frequently viewed as morally superior, appealing to the conscience of movement members and outside observers alike. This moral high ground fosters unity within the movement and strengthens its appeal to a broader audience.
- Better Long-Term Outcomes: The research indicates that societies emerging from nonviolent campaigns tend to be more stable and democratic. Because nonviolent resistance often involves negotiation and persuasion, it fosters a culture of nonviolence that can persist after the conflict ends.
- Strategic Purity: Nonviolent movements that remain committed to nonviolence and marginalize violent elements are generally more successful than those that incorporate significant violent tactics. Maintaining a clear focus on nonviolence helps movements achieve their objectives more effectively.
Overall, while exceptions and complex situations can pose challenges to nonviolent resistance, Chenoweth and Stephan’s research supports the conclusion that nonviolent resistance is more effective than violent approaches for achieving sustainable social and political change.
In fact, nonviolent resistance has been a crucial aspect of the history of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation. From the early days of strikes and boycotts during the British Mandate to the mass mobilizations of the First Intifada, the resistance has taken many forms. The ongoing protests against the separation barrier, the global BDS movement, and the rise of digital activism continue to shape this nonviolent approach. While the path to peace remains fraught with challenges, the history of nonviolent resistance in Palestine serves as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Palestinian people in their pursuit of justice, dignity, and self-determination.
Given the evidence, perhaps Columbia’s students and faculty who wish to support the Palestinian cause would do well to give serious consideration to what, exactly, they are supporting, and how their support might in fact translate to a just and lasting peace.