Advocating for a Change from Violent to Nonviolent Protests

Advocating for a Change from Violent to Nonviolent Protests

Various countries worldwide have experienced violent protests over the last decade due to social and political issues. For example, some countries have engaged in violent protests against the government for the high cost of living, police brutality, and the implementation of policies that do not conform with societal beliefs and values. Protests have also become common in multiple social movements since the 19^th century, such as the civil rights movements, the anti-Nazi resistance, and labor movements. The protests include violent and nonviolent action. For instance, protests in democratic settings include various tactical choices, such as coming to an agreement and ensuring that each party’s needs are met. Violent protests, on the other hand, mostly end in disagreement between the parties involved and the unnecessary destruction of property and loss of lives. Assessing the effectiveness of violent and nonviolent protests is challenging because it includes clearly defining what should be considered in evaluating the success of a protest and the difficulty of establishing whether the protests are strategic and yield the anticipated outcome. Therefore, most people focus on shifting to violent protests when nonviolent protests do not yield the expected result. Although violent protests have become popular in many countries worldwide because of their role in mobilizing support from people worldwide, people should change from using violent protests to using nonviolent protests to increase human safety and secure the future of societies.

Justification for Advocating for a Change from Violent to Nonviolent Protests

Over the last decade, the use of violent protests to achieve a specific goal in various countries worldwide has presented evidence suggesting that violent protests are ineffective. Researchers have also gathered evidence demonstrating the ineffectiveness of violent protests. For example, a study by Muñoz and Anduiza (2019) indicates that violent protests are less effective in achieving the goals of the movements involved in the protests than nonviolent protests. The authors add that violent protests only bring short-term advantages and cause a lot of damage to society, thus increasing the cost of pushing for a specific goal. According to Omar (2017), violent protests also have unintended consequences, such as increasing discourses among the elites based on their role in maintaining public order, promoting repression from the government, strengthening the opponent, and reducing the ability to maintain resilience in the face of oppression. Therefore, violent protests may create a foundation for repression, which reduces people’s participation in protests. Violent protests also reduce the likelihood of a movement’s success by negatively impacting public support for the movement and its goals. Notably, public support is vital in social movements because it increases the movement’s ability to mobilize other resources and send signals to majorities and elites and is more likely to continue growing by adding more activities to the movement (Muñoz & Anduiza, 2019). Therefore, public support is an important outcome of social movements’ actions and achieving their objectives, which can be compromised by violent acts.

The arguments supporting the use of violence in protests assume that disruptive protests can generate support for making the changes demanded by the movement. For example, Muñoz & Anduiza (2019) argue that large-scale violent protests derive their power from the ability to disrupt the relations between the people in a society and social order, thus encouraging people who may not agree with the protestors’ goals to join the protest in their support. Even so, disruptive protests affect the relations and normal lives of the people in society (Andrews et al., 2015). Some people may also be sympathetic to the protestors, thus joining the protest by offering support such as helping injured protestors and hiding the protesters being sought by authorities, especially if the protestors’ goals favor the majority in society. However, it is important to consider the dark side of violent protests, such as the loss of lives, destruction of property, and disruption of the delivery of important services such as healthcare. It is also essential to consider the likelihood of increased violence arising from a lack of public support. For instance, the violent protests witnessed over the past decade have also demonstrated that violence during protests can affect public opinion, leading to reduced public support. For example, if lives are lost during violent protests, the public may develop a negative opinion about the protests and withdraw their support to prevent more loss of lives. Violence may also deter activists from joining the movement, leading to reduced voice and a high likelihood of being unable to meet the movement’s goals and objectives. In addition, Simpson et al. (2018) note that violence could also deter the mobilization of rival activist groups. For instance, rival activist groups may be afraid of joining the protest to avoid being blamed for the loss of lives and destruction of property that may occur during the protests. The main impact of deterring rival activist groups is the lack of a second opinion on the issue causing the protest and how it should be addressed.

Violent protests over the past decade have also demonstrated that most of these protests end in armed conflict between citizens and law enforcement officers, leading to an increased risk of loss of lives. According to Rød & Weidmann (2023), there are two reasons why the risk of armed conflict increases after the mobilization of violent protests. The first reason is the capacity of the state and opportunities for armed conflict. When protestors threaten the government, government officials are pushed to deploy security force resources to neutralize the situation (Rød & Weidmann, 2023). This increases the likelihood of other non-state groups reassessing their chances of success in a military dispute leading to armed conflict. Violent protests can also negatively impact state capacity by reducing the government’s legitimacy. For instance, in autocratic governments, the threat of violent protests may withhold the regime’s opponents from disclosing their valid preferences. In addition, when violent protests expose a government’s unpopularity, violent mobilization is likely to occur for non-state groups, especially if the government responds by creating a crackdown to repress the citizens. Violent protests may also create competition between non-state actors, thus increasing the risk of armed conflict. For instance, if non-state actors compete with the government and those challenging the government, an armed conflict may arise. If one of the non-state actors challenges the government, the other actors’ drive to mobilize supporters increases because it threatens their power and local resources, leading to violence. Unfortunately, the burden of the impact of the armed conflict is felt by the citizens who experience the destruction of property, disruption of their daily routines, physical and mental injury, and death.

Moreover, various studies demonstrate the effectiveness of nonviolent acts in resolving social issues and ensuring that a movement’s goals and objectives are met. For instance, Chenoweth (2023) argues that nonviolent protests focus on dislocating the protestors from their main source of cultural, political, economic, and social power, thus making it easier to establish an agreement. Nonviolent protests also focus on building enough power to disrupt the existing order, create leverage over the opponent, develop influential coalitions among the conflicting parties, and inform security forces, civil servants, economic elites, and major political elites that their long-term interests can be met by rejecting to uphold the existing system. Eliminating the opponent’s key supporters constrains the resistance movement’s options (Chenoweth, 2023). Therefore, it is important to focus on removing the factors that promote violent protests, such as inducing defections, mass mobilization, and repression against the protestors. Nonviolent protests should also be encouraged because they increase the three dimensions of people’s power (Chenoweth, 2023). For example, they promote large-scale mobilization, support from a more diverse group of people, and sympathy from the public, thus making it easier for the movement’s goals and objectives to be met. For instance, a study by Dahlum et al. (2022) established that nonviolent protests are successful because most people see them as a more legitimate way to pursue goals. Therefore, nonviolent protests can be considered a logical way to address issues and bring change without harming the people in society. Nonviolent protests also increase the likelihood of major regime elites considering violence an unsustainable strategy to address the problems in society. For instance, the government may be forced to withhold security forces during protests because they believe people will not engage in violent acts and can withhold their intent to destroy property to gain public attention.

Another major reason people should change from using violent protests to using nonviolent protests is to promote economic and social progress. Over the past decade, many countries that have experienced incidents of violent protests have recorded a drop in their economic and social growth. Essentially, violent protests put a hold on business activities because business people are afraid of opening their businesses during the protestors. Some business people also undergo massive losses during violent protestors because of looting and destruction of property. Such incidents limit the business’ ability to generate the income used for economic development. The government may also be forced to use a lot of financial resources after violent protests to repair the damage caused by protestors, especially if they damage major public resources such as roads. The impact of violent protests on social development, on the other hand, includes the rise of enmity and conflict among members of society. Conflicts between community members may arise between those supporting the violent protests and those against it. The disputes among society members may result in a lack of collaboration among people, resulting in reduced societal productivity and growth. Violent protests also push away investors because they fear their investments may not yield the projected profits. For instance, investors may assume that a country’s political instability and protests could impact the country’s currency and economic well-being, leading to reduced revenue and profits. Such issues have a long-term impact on a community’s economic development because countries rely on investors to grow their economies. Therefore, societies need to encourage their members to engage in nonviolent protests to meet their goals and protect them from the negative impacts of reduced economic development, such as unemployment and high poverty levels.

Changing from violent to nonviolent protests is also important in protecting some sectors that contribute to economic growth and development. For example, the tourism industry contributes to the economic development of many countries and societies, but violent protests can reduce its growth. Tourists may be reluctant to visit areas experiencing violent protests because of the fear of being attacked. Some countries also warn their citizens against visiting a specific country if the country is experiencing violent protestors. For instance, the United States and the United Kingdom warn their citizens against visiting countries experiencing political instability characterized by violent protests because they are responsible for their citizens’ well-being. Such warnings may have a long-term negative impact on a country because tourists may not feel comfortable visiting the country even after the violent protests are resolved due to the fear that the protests may arise at any time. Therefore, countries need to create awareness among citizens of the long-term negative impacts of violent protests and encourage them to use nonviolent approaches to ensure their goals and objectives are met.

Although it may take a while for most societies, especially those used to violent protests, to embrace the use of nonviolent protests, the change is inevitable, especially in the current times, because people have become enlightened about the importance of peace based on past experiences and observing the impact of violence in different parts across the world. The rise of the digital age and the sharing of information to people worldwide also creates a need for embracing nonviolent protests to address social, economic, and political issues because the internet can be used to escalate violence and increase the damage caused by violent protests. Therefore, activists organizing protests need to be cautious when mobilizing their supporters to prevent violence among the protestors and the sharing of sentiments and information that could cause violence. Governments across the world also have to step in to prevent violent protests by ensuring that security forces are only deployed when the protestors destroy property or attack other people. The level of violence used by security officers when dealing with protestors should also be monitored because extreme violence increases the risk of armed conflict, which could result in massive loss of lives and destruction of property. For instance, police officers should be discouraged from using live bullets during violent protests because they increase the likelihood of protestors attacking the officers and holding more violent protests in retaliation to the actions of the police. The government can also pass laws that place heavy fines and sentencing on people who participate in violent protests to encourage nonviolent protests.

Conclusion

The use of violent protests to meet a movement’s goals and objectives has been prevalent in many countries worldwide because of the assumption that violence increases support from the public by disrupting the social order and drawing people’s attention to the protests. However, people should change from using violent protests to using nonviolent protests because of the negative impacts of violent protests on society, including limited societal and economic growth. People should also consider nonviolent protests because they can effectively ensure that a movement’s goals and objectives are met by ensuring the conflicting parties reach a mutual understanding. The future of societies also relies on the ability to maintain collaboration among society members, hence the need to avoid violent protests that could create conflict.

References

Andrews, K. T., Beyerlein, K., & Tucker Farnum, T. (2015). The legitimacy of protest: Explaining white southerners’ attitudes toward the Civil Rights Movement. Social Forces, 94(3), 1021–1044. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov097

Chenoweth, E. (2023). The role of violence in nonviolent resistance. Annual Review of Political Science, 26(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124128

Dahlum, S., Pinckney, J., & Wig, T. (2022). Moral logics of support for nonviolent resistance: Evidence from a cross-national survey experiment. Comparative Political Studies, 56(3), 326–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140221100198

Muñoz, J., & Anduiza, E. (2019). ‘If a fight starts, watch the crowd’: The effect of violence on popular support for Social Movements. Journal of Peace Research, 56(4), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318820575

Omar, W. (2017). [PDF] Do protests matter? Evidence from the 1960s black insurgency. Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Do-Protests-Matter-Evidence-from-the-1960s-Black-Wasow/19f53bc08f6c10acabf2ede7524742f339eb7566

Rød, E. G., & Weidmann, N. B. (2023). From bad to worse? how protest can foster armed conflict in autocracies. Political Geography, 103, 102891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102891

Simpson, B., Willer, R., & Feinberg, M. (2018). Does violent protest backfire? Testing a theory of public reactions to activist violence. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 4, 237802311880318. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118803189

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Assignments
• Essay Two Assignment Guidelines

• Essay Two¬¬: Becoming an Advocate of Change: An Argument for the Greater Good Topic: As our discussion of Into the Wild has revealed, Chris McCandless not only wanted to change the world but through his interactions with and influence others, he did so. This is perhaps his lasting legacy.

Advocating for a Change from Violent to Nonviolent Protests

• For essay number two, you will be carefully building an argument for a particular change. Please be sure that what you propose is specific. For instance, while saying that people should have more compassion is certainly true, it is much too broad in scope for this essay. A way to narrow the focus could be to present the argument that more people should actively volunteer at the community level. This is simply one example. You will be advocating a change that is important to you, something you genuinely believe in. Remember that essay three will be an extension of essay two, so please choose your topic wisely.