By Morgen Makombo Sikwila
Movements emerge in response to a growing crisis, the heart of which is a lack of democracy, poor governance and corruption.
People do not feel represented by the governments that claim to speak in their names. Some movements are not based on creating either a program or a political party that will put forward a plan for others to follow.
Their purpose is not to determine “the” path that a particular country should take but to create the space for a conversation in which all can participate and in which all can determine together what the future should look like. At the same time, these movements attempt to prefigure that future society in their present social relationships.
In the decade from 2010 to 2020, humanity witnessed an explosion of mass protests that seemed to herald profound changes. These protests started in Tunisia and erupted across the Arab world, before huge demonstrations also rocked countries like Turkey, Brazil, Ukraine and Hong Kong.
By the end of the decade, protests were roiling Sudan, Iraq, Algeria, Australia, France, Indonesia, much of Latin America, India, Lebanon and Haiti. During these years, more people took part in street demonstrations than at any other point in human history. Many of these protests were experienced as a euphoric victory by their participants and met with optimism in the international press.
But years later, after most of the foreign reporters have gone, people can now see how the uprisings preceded – if not necessarily caused – outcomes that were very different from the goals of the protesters. Nowhere did things turn out as planned. In many cases, things got much worse.
Vague or unrealistic goals can make it difficult to assess progress and maintain focus.
Some movements often play roles in political transitions and democratization. However, in some cases, some movements can succeed in ending an incumbent authoritarian’s rule, but are unable to consolidate gains and instead the situations deteriorate.
Apparently spontaneous, digitally coordinated, horizontally organised- leaderless mass protests,do a very good job of blowing holes in social structures and creating political vacuums but it is much less successful when it comes to filling them. And there is always some force ready to step in. In Egypt, it was the military. In Bahrain, it was Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council. In Turkey it was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In Hong Kong it was Beijing.
Nefarious movement, or movements can be become heavily influenced by nefarious agents of change,at least in their beginning stages—nonviolent (because of their seemingly peaceful actions) but their underlying agenda and goals are based on and promote intolerance, discrimination and violence.
Some examples include the anti-refugee protest movement, Pegida, in Germany; the alt-right movement in the United States; Ayatollah Khomenei as the symbolic leader of the Iranian nonviolent revolution of 1979; or the Nazis’ nonviolent boycott of Jewish stores and businesses in 1934.
Movements can struggle when members have diverse goals, ideologies, or priorities, leading to internal conflict and fragmentation. This can hinder their ability to present a unified front and mobilize effectively. Moreso, movements often require substantial resources (financial, human, logistical) to operate effectively. Lack of these resources can severely limit their reach and impact.
Poor leadership, inadequate planning, and inefficient communication can cripple movements abilities to coordinate actions, recruit new members, and sustain momentum. When the movement’s goals or strategies are adopted, either partially or entirely, by the established power structures, it can lead to a loss of focus and direction, effectively neutralizing the movement’s impact.
When governments or other powerful entities use force, intimidation, or legal measures to suppress the movement, it can weaken its capacity to operate and achieve its objectives. The movement fails to resonate with the broader public. If a movement fails to resonate with the broader public or attract sufficient public support, it may struggle to exert pressure for change and achieve its goals.
Choosing inappropriate or counterproductive tactics can alienate potential supporters, provoke negative reactions, or fail to achieve the desired outcome. However, it is important to note that even movements that fail to achieve their immediate goals can still have a lasting impact. They can raise awareness of important issues, inspire future generations to organize, and contribute to broader social change over time.
Some movements are virtuous, without sufficient capacity to sustain positive change after their victory. For example, the Orange revolution in Ukraine in 2004 forced the Kuchma regime to accept a rerun of the presidential elections. The elections, in turn, ensured the victory of the opposition candidate—only to see the reforms in post-revolutionary Ukraine stalled and authoritarianism with massive political corruption reemerging soon afterwards. During a popular uprising in 2011, the Egyptians established the principles and norms of transparency, solidarity, democracy and equality that governed their captured Tahrir square for 11 days. However, they failed to ensure that their ideals would also live and shape realities in work places, universities, public institutions and rural communities in all of Egypt.
Some movements are strategically flawed. These are the movements with noble and progressive ideas, but their strategic means to realize them contradict the very nature of their positive ends. One case in point is Tamarod in Egypt, which gathered more than 20 million signatures in support of President Morsi’s removal and led massive anti-government protests in June 2013. The movement strategically aligned itself with the Egyptian military, and supported the 2013 coup that led to Morsi’s downfall. These events were followed by the massacre of the Muslim Brotherhood supporters in August of that year and the eventual reestablishment of the authoritarian regime in Egypt.
Some movements use violence—even low-scale violence—to challenge oppression. The US-based antifa movement that is willing to adopt violence against extreme right activists and justifies it by the noble cause of stopping fascism—even though it recognizes that eventual defeat of racism and violent extremism come from political mass mobilization and participation.
Since these flaws take account of actual characteristics of movements themselves, then their negative trajectories might actually be shifted if the inner workings of the movements are transformed. In other words, activists have a degree of agency and control over these changes. What factors do activists need to pay attention to in order to increase the likelihood that civil resistance would generate positive change in the long-term, and how?
Basing a movement’s conduct on respect for universal human rights can help the movement adhere to nonviolent discipline and prevent or reduce violence during and after the struggle. Elizabeth A. Wilson refers to this as a “human rights ethos.” She identifies some principles by which nonviolent campaigns can measure their human rights ethos.
Non-repression, embodied by goals that advance political rights and political autonomy for all; non-exploitation, embodied by solidarity with the persecuted, offering mutual aid, and reaching out to diverse groups of society to build shared understanding and trust; and nonviolent means, embodied by actions that do not threaten or do physical harm to others, then movements can therefore be successful.
To sustain their gains and increase capacity to implement lasting positive change, movements must pursue a strategy of disruptive actions plus long-term constructive resistance. The latter is based on building networks and coalitions, and setting up alternative and parallel processes, practices, norms, and institutions to those that exist (which are often rigged against ordinary people). The movement’s capacity to sustain its victories can be strengthened through resistance that builds self-reliance, self-organization, and self-governance, and constructs a new, positive social and political reality well before this reality becomes a new norm for state practice.
Civic, grassroots institutions create the basis for a more viable and democratic transition to follow. They include underground free press and uncensored communication networks, alternative schooling and educational systems, economic cooperatives, and parallel cultural institutions, which are all built during resistance against oppression. Such constructive resistance also helps build positive social capital prior to the transition. Dense associational networks that provide various services to the needy and repressed, supported by civic entrepreneurship, can be propitious for developing a culture of genuine public service and public accountability. These can also help reduce corruption during the ensuing transition.
Majority of successful nonviolent movements do lead to democratic transitions, but certainly not all movements do. The specific social and political context in which a movement operates can significantly impact its success or failure. Factors such as the level of democracy, the strength of civil society, and the prevailing cultural norms can all play a role.
Morgen Makombo Sikwila
MSc Peace and Governance
BSc Counselling
Diploma in Environmental Health
Certificate in Marketing Management
email address: morgensikwilam@gmail.com
Phone Number: 0772823282
