“The journal International Security using a massive database analyzed 323 major insurrections in support of self-determination and democratic rule since 1900.  It found that violent resistance was successful only 26 percent of the time, whereas nonviolent campaigns had a 53 percent success rate.” (Weapons of Mass Democracy, Stephen Zunes, YES magazine, Fall 2009).  This article inspired and guided further research in preparing this posting.

The scene is poignant and quietly dramatic.  Jesus, mounted on a donkey, reaches the brow of the hill for a first glimpse of the massive walls of Jerusalem and the throngs leaping and shouting to greet him.  Surely a smile of delight will dance across his face.  But . . . he weeps!  What does he see that stirs grief and not celebration?  Briefly: festive as it seems, jubilant pilgrims wildly waving palms, it is their shout and its intonation, “Alleluia,” and their grip on the palms that give them away.  “Alleluia” is a cry akin to “Right on the Revolution,” a readiness to be called to arms, a longing for Jesus to brandish a sword and start the revolt.  He sits on a donkey, a symbol of peace, but they can only see a horse, one coming to conquer.  An unlikely convocation of biblical scholars and military strategists gathered a few years ago to ask a probing question: Did Jesus refuse the military option on strategic or principled grounds?  Did he reject an armed revolt because it could only fail?  Or, because it was morally wrong in the peaceable kingdom he announced?  The military strategists concluded that an armed insurrection – in a city crammed with pilgrims, caches of weapons at hand, Jews significantly outnumbering Roman troops – had high likelihood of success.  With the violence option promising, Jesus stood firmly on the principle of non-violence. 

Jesus – and this study of a century’s review of insurrections around the world – have clear resonance.  A passion for “regime change,” a longing for freedom from the bondage of an oppressive and usually military-backed government, an impulse to overthrow dictatorial power is as old as history itself.  Our country was birthed in the “blood of martyrs,” proof that a ragtag army can defeat a seasoned army, violent regime change.  But then consider the successful non-violent insurrections in the last half century in the Philippines and Serbia, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Georgia and Estonia, Romania and East Germany.  Delegations representing these countries are coming together to share the fruits of “strategic non-violence.”

The “success” of non-violent revolutions involves far more than simply “winning,” but appears to foster a blend of positive dynamics within a given country that make transition not only more peaceful but intrinsically participatory and democratic. 

• Those of any age or gender can be involved in massive non-cooperation, demonstrations, strikes, non-payment of taxes. 
• Non-violent resisters more quickly win over the military and police personnel dispatched to confront them.  While violence escalates, non-violence de-escalates the intensity of armed retaliation. 
• “Successful” armed revolution may change the parties in power but may only perpetuate the repressive system.  The paradigm of governance and the politics of power do not shift.  
• Successful non-violent revolutions seem more apt to birth new structures, alternative institutions, increased inclusivity and more broadly-based coalitions.

How fascinating to apply all this to what seems to be broadening non-violent revolutionary resistance in Iran and Burma.  And to place that alongside the violent regime changing strategies employed in Iraq and Afghanistan.   We want to encourage and support the Iranian and Burmese, their vision and hopes, and perhaps accelerate the momentum of their process.  But intervening, especially in ways that can fracture the fragile commitment to non-violence, and tilt them to the wrong side of that scorecard.