'Non Violent Resistance\r'

'Chenoweth and Stephans dividing lines and research charge that non ferocious campaigns ar more successful than hot campaigns against cherry-red political government activitys. Though flushed protests can show to be successful and they do get the capitulum across though in a in truth different focus, non waste protests I leave alone give birth to agree, ar the best and most efficient way to go about combating a rough opposition. With cases much(prenominal) as Dr.Martin Luther King, and Ghandi being two of the most renowned cases. (not to say that there are not galore(postnominal) more) The two writers argue 2 main points as to why a unprovocative approaches are strategically more sound than those that promote violence. The prototypal argument is t hat when a violent baron (especially a government) tries to repress an non-violent campaign, the repression may backfire. â€Å"First, repressing nonviolent campaigns may backfire.In backfire, an unjust actâ€of ten violent repressionâ€recoils against its originators, often resulting in the break defeat of obedience among authorities supporters, mobilization of the population against the regime, and transnational condemnation of the regime” (Cenoweth ; Stephan, 11) In turn when a violent regime confronts a non-violent regime with violence, it sends a pass on of opposition that will label that country hostile. I cerebrate this with the, Nuke the Middle East comments.Though acts of terrorism may be common in the area the meter of civilian and restful citizens in the area would nark a no holds bar bombing unimaginable (as well as unlawful in regards to international laws) They also mention a breakdown in support for the violent regime. I agree. As a violent force aggressively challenges a nonviolent movement that is just that, non violent, support tends to diminish from the regime causing a power shift and fundamentally the regime could collapse due to exhausting cash and l ack of support.That is a very interesting and true perspective of a non violent protest system that I had not thought of and after opinion about it I tend I disputation more towards this argument than I did when I had first began reading this article. Their second argument for non-violent campaigns is that they promote negotiations. They excuse that most regimes are more easily swayed to negotiate with a non violent organization as they are not causing harm the regime itself or the military by taking hands on action.They bring up something called Correspondence Inference Theory. basically we respond to an opponent based on their actions. If theyre non violent you would confront them as such and the same goes if they are violent. They make the point that public acceptance is the nub of any resistance and the public masses would be more opt to follow a non violent one than a violent. The reason is simple, the public will not tone of voice as threatened. I feel as though these are great arguments.If by chance a cop de tat had arose in the united states i feel i would be more opt to join a non violent route, such as the hippie movement in the 1960s where the protests were expressed via music instead of violence. Of course there are special occurrences where the two above arguments are invalid. During the civil rights protests many African American protesters were hosed down by the authorities even though they had followed Dr. Kings message of peace.Dr. King himself though an advocate of peace was kill by the opposition. As previously stated I agree with the authors that a non violent approach strategically is a wonderful idea but it has a down side and I believe that it leaves the peace makers vulnerable to opposition extremists who are not crazy about international opinion A a few(prenominal) recent examples being Terrorist organizations like Al Queda, and tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and North Korea.\r\n'