Vaclav Havel passed at the close of 2011, twenty-two years after leading one of the most successful democratic movements in Eastern Europe. I wrote the following as a dedication and I used it as an exercise to understand the political effectiveness of non-violent action, but to also reflect on Havel’s impact more broadly.
The political effectiveness of nonviolent action, accessed through the lens of the Revolution of 1989 in Czechoslovakia, shows that nonviolent action is effective in aiding political changes. The changes that occurred redefined the era of the Cold War in this region, contributing to its end. Nonviolent action was politically effective in meeting its ends, although not without consequences. The country split, becoming the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both led by democratically elected leaders. The movement in Czechoslovakia result in restructuring government; it played a significant role in mending East and West relations in Europe, aiding political changes in the wider-Central European region.
Nonviolent action is briefly defined, and a criteria for assessment of its political effectiveness set up. The definition, drawn from the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Gene Sharp, frame the use of the concept throughout this essay. Sharp’s work sets up the criteria used to check the political effectiveness in the case study.
Five questions asked in the analysis, and the answers that follow, offer the layperson explanation beyond general news of events during this period: 1) Why was there a movement?; 2) Who participated in the movement, why?; 3) What were the goals of the campaign?; 4) How were the goals pursued?; 5) Did the movement meet its aims?; and 6) What did the movement contribute to social movements worldwide?
Defining Nonviolent Action and a Criteria for its Assessment
Nonviolent action has taken many forms throughout the last century, advocated by a number of well-known historical figures. Although nonviolence does not have an extensive academic history; its practice and development have led to more coherent definitions of nonviolence. I support a general definition of the concept of nonviolence, as defined by the academic Gene Sharp whom elucidated approaches through careful study of ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and other historical figures. I briefly introduce these two social revolutionaries and their ideas of nonviolent action, and then set up the criteria to check the political effectiveness of it as an approach with varying dimensions.
Nonviolent action is erroneously perceived as a passive, cowardly, or inactive technique toward addressing grievances. According to Gene Sharp this perception is wrong. Nonviolent action is just what it says:
action which is nonviolent, not inaction. The technique consists, not simply of words, but of active protest, non-coöperation, and intervention.[1] Nonviolence consist of active defiance, disobedience, and civil resistance. It relies on a principle of conduct that rejects physical violence but “does not attempt to avoid or ignore conflict.”[2] Sharp, like Mahatma Gandhi, believes that nonviolence “is
one response to the problem of how to
act effectively in politics, especially how to wield power.”[3]
Gandhi embodied nonviolent action through his principle of
satyagraha, the philosophical approach he used in his practices of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and non-coöperation, each an effective means to change structures of political power. Since political power depends on cooperation, submission, and obedience of those ruled; Gandhi believed the means to change it rooted in satyagraha.
According to Gandhi, satyagraha is truth force and “excludes the use of violence because people are not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to punish.”[4] He also believed that nonviolence “is not in any shape or form a passive or inactive method . . . it is essentially an active movement, much more active than the one involving the use of sanguinary weapons.”[6]
Gandhi’s ideas, practiced by another proponent of nonviolent action, Martin Luther King Jr., whose principles of nonviolence are known as
agape. Dr. King defined a
gape as necessity of love for all people, the center of all nonviolent action; the practice inherently altruistic and sincere. Agape is the core of:
nonviolent direct action (which) seeks to create such a crisis and set up such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to face the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored. . . inevitably opening the door for negotiation.[7]
Sharp, in his three-volume series on nonviolent action, covers: 1) power and struggle; 2) the dynamics; and 3) the methods of nonviolent action. He states that there are three branches of methods in nonviolent action, arising as forms of
protests, non-cooperation, and
intervention seeking to effectively change, disrupt, or disintegrate the power, authority, or institutional structures that are repressive, or operating in opposition to nonviolent actors.
First, protests often occur through formal statements, such as; public speeches, mass petitions, declarations, or letters of opposition. It also occurs through means of communication such as, banners, leaflets, newspapers, radio, and television; and in the 21st Century; social media, web, and mobile. Of course, these methods are only a few, and there are far too many to list here.[8]
Second, non-cooperation is a method to affect change through social, economic, and political means. A few examples of social non-cooperation are: ostracism of persons, customs, and institutions, and withdrawal from the social system. Examples of economic non-cooperation occur through the actions of consumers, producers, holders of financial resources, and governments. A combination of strikes and economic closures are also effective. Lastly, political non-cooperation is represented through rejection of authority, citizens’ non-cooperation with government, domestic governmental action, or international governmental action.[9]
Third, non-violent intervention covers five main categories: psychological, physical, social, economic, and political intervention. It differs from protest and non-cooperation “in that in some way they intervene in the situation”[10] and work to disrupt, “and even destroy, established behavior patterns, policies, relationships, or institutions.”[11] It is essential to remember that nonviolent actors may have to commit to more than one of these three methods to meet their goals. If nonviolent methods are effective they potentially have capacity to change power relationships, resulting in social change.
Sharp states that successful nonviolent action produces change in one of three broad ways. These are
conversion, accommodation, and nonviolent coercion. With
conversion the opponent may finally come around and accept a new point of view that is a positive reaction to nonviolent activists.
Accommodation entails the opponent adjusting to the nonviolent activists, but not changing their point of view. Finally,
nonviolent coercion occurs when the opponent loses control, and their power stripped against their will.[12] When assessing case studies it is important to see if change was produced in one or more of these three ways.
Nonviolent action falls within two major dimensions; the tactical-strategic and the pragmatic-ideological. These two dimensions frame the case study, further split into four categories:
- Tactical-ideological, it is primarily a short to medium term movement that seeks to change social structures. It is also based on moral and ethical principles that combine the means and ends of both parties.
- Strategic-ideological it is primarily committed to long-term initiatives through the continual analysis of structural relationships and based on changing them through moral and ethical principles.
- Strategic-pragmatic it is based on long-term goals to defeat the opponent but, its initiatives work in the context of the immediate circumstances.
- Pragmatic-tactical the campaign may be based on short-term goals, simply aiming to defeat the opponent and change the given social structures.
The assessment that follows determines the type of nonviolent action used in the case of Czechoslovakia. The actors’ non-violent methods used include
protests, non-cooperation, intervention, or a combination, each identified. Finally, Sharp stated that successful nonviolent action produces change in one of three broad ways, through
conversion, accommodation, or nonviolent coercion. I assess whether change was produced in any one of these three ways, or through a combination of each, and offer the result.
Case Study: Revolution of ‘1989 in Czechoslovakia
Why was there a revolution in Czechoslovakia?
The nonviolent action that took place in Czechoslovakia in 1989 can be attributed to several factors. Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Soviet Union appointed in March of 1985, “confronted an economic crisis.”[28] To solve these economic problems “he sought to pursue arms control with the United States . . . to direct his efforts to restructure the Soviet economy (
perestroĭka) requiring a degree of political openness (
glasnost).”[29] His change in foreign policy intended “to allow breathing space for reforming the Soviet economy and polity, and he encouraged similar reforms throughout the Eastern bloc, (including Czechoslovakia.)”[30]
The most important factor that triggered the movement in Czechoslovakia was the massacre of November 17, 1989, when the Velvet Revolution rapidly unfolded. Students and citizens of Czechoslovakia descended on Wenceslas Square “to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the martyrdom of Jan Opletal, a Czech student murdered by Nazis.”[31] The movements original focus shifted from the martyrdom of Opletal to the ruling regime in Czechoslovakia. The “economic troubles (in Czechoslovakia) provided real pressure for political and economic reform, and set the context within which the movement operated.”[32] The protesters on the front line were met by riot police who were “determinedly nonviolent, the marchers lit candles, chanted, and sang, and endured beatings.”[33] This event ignited emotions that had been resting deep within the citizens of Czechoslovakia since the Soviets invaded their country in 1968, known as the Prague Spring of 1968. The following day over two hundred thousand people descended on the same square demanding an end to communist rule, respect for human rights, and economic reform.
Who participated in the revolution and why?
The massacre of November 17, 1989 created a ‘wave of mobilization,’ validating the need for political and economic reform in Czechoslovakia. Further more, the mass mobilization of the Czech people was quickly enhanced by members of Charter 77, an organization that had demanded human rights in Czechoslovakia since the 1970s.[34] With Charter 77 already established it did not take long for its members to rally students, artists, intellectuals and everyday citizens to perpetuate the movement. In fact, it “spurred the formation of a coordinating effort, ‘Civic Forum,’ a new human rights group which had grown out of Charter 77.”[35]
Vaclav Havel, an original member of Charter 77, called together a meeting in a local theatre. This meeting took place three days after the massacre and resulted in creation of the Civic Forum, the primary body that represented and demanded human rights for all Czech citizens. In Slovakia there sprung up a different organization named: The Public Against Violence (PAV); operating separately from the Civic Forum. Although the leaders of these groups did communicate, the central organization of both movements was separate. This examination only concentrates on the movement led by the Civic Forum.
What were the goals of the campaign?
The Civic Forum was the motivational force behind the twenty-four day nonviolent action that took place in Czechoslovakia. It acted as the ‘spokesperson’ for the Czechoslovak public. Established to create a forum for the people who were criticizing the leadership, becoming the leading organization of the revolution.
The Forum was essential for meaningful social change; “working to develop autonomous social institutions and social life”[36] was important for a body that sought and demanded change.
The Civic Forum fulfilled this role and demanded resignation of all communist leaders, high level administration, creation of an alternative special commission to investigate the police, and the release of prisoners of conscience. These demands presented at a rally after the first meeting of the Civic Forum and included other demands presented by Vaclav Klaus. He presented a document called ‘What We Want; Programmatic Principles of the Civic Forum.’ It proposed “a new Czechoslovakia with the rule of law guaranteed by an independent judiciary, free elections at all levels, a market economy, social justice, respect for the environment, and independent academic and cultural life.”[37] The Czech people also sought to create the conditions for the “freedom of assembly, association, speech, and press.”[38] With time constraints and increased pressure the Civic Forum quickly begun pursuing these goals.
How did they pursue their goals?
Massive amounts of people constantly communicated after the massacre on November 17. The Civic Forum took responsibility of establishing a channel of communication, acting as a between the people and the government. The Civic Forum held debates, increased pressure on the leaders, continually organized masses on Wenceslas Square, and placed posters all over the city. The people even gained control of State television which “ceased to be a government tool” and became the primary source of information for the people.[39] The Forum also organized committees in hospitals, schools, and offices.[40] The Civic Forum felt that if they could “incite revolutionary changes, not by seeking power, but by building an autonomous social sector . . . that the official party institutions would wither away.”[41] The Forum, as an alternative institution, set deadlines on their demands holding leaders responsible to the people.
While increasing the pressure on the political leaders the Forum called a press conference demanding a Soviet reassessment of 1968. This report “was accepted with pleasure by the Soviet Embassy, who promised that it would promptly be sent to Moscow by telex.”[42] This demand gave the Forum an incredible amount of political strength and within days “the five Warsaw Pact states which invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 formally renounced and condemned (the Soviet invasion of 1968) as an intervention in Czechoslovakia’s internal affairs.”[43] The already disintegrating government in Czechoslovakia was becoming more and more illegitimate as demonstrations continued to undermine communist leadership. The “demonstrations not only continued, but grew to over half a million”[44] giving the movement incredible momentum.
Did the movement meet its goals?
On day eight of the revolution, November 24, Havel and Dubcek appeared on stage to debate ideas on socialism, with Dubcek more interested in socialism as practiced in communist Russia vs. Havel who advocated liberal democracy and open markets. Interrupted, both were informed that “the politburo and Central Committee secretariat resigned.”[45] Their demands were now being met, but pressure continually increased and further resignations occurred shortly afterward. On November 28 the prime minister contacted the Forum promising them that a new government based on their wishes would be proposed. A day later they were disappointed that the Prime Minister’s suggestions did not meet the criteria set by them.
The Forum extended its deadline to December 10, UN Human Rights Day. The prime minister had to present a legitimate proposal by that deadline. After this ultimatum “there followed ‘round table’ talks between representatives of all the official state parties – crucially, of course, the communists, headed by Vasil Mohorita – and those of the Forum, headed by Havel, and of the PAC, headed by Jan Carnogursky.”[46]
The round table lasted two days. On December 10, 1989 an ad hoc government was put in place until proper elections could take place in 1990. Immediately following establishment of a new government Gustav Husak resigned as President. The Forum and the people of Czechoslovakia had accomplished what they set out to do. Free elections, called to take place by June of 1990, propelled Vaclav Havel, the leader of the Civic Forum, into the Presidency of the Czech Republic, as Slovakia split.
The people of the Czech Republic, led by Havel, focused on the rule of law, guaranteed by an independent judiciary, while ensuring free elections at all levels of society. A market economy now exists, and the country aspires to make sure social justice and respect for the environment are maintained and youth have access to a , secure, independent, academic and cultural life. The Czech people now have greater guarantees for freedom of assembly, association, speech, and press. They have also guaranteed their future security by recently becoming a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Assessing the Political Effectiveness of Nonviolence, a Review of the Case Study
The case study demonstrates the political effectiveness of nonviolent action in different ways in Czechoslovakia; it effectively changed the dynamics of the regime and forced change internally at all levels. This review determines which dimension of nonviolent action this movement falls under in Sharp’s categorization. I look at the methods pursued in by the Civic Forum as a nonviolent movement. Lastly, Sharp stated that successful nonviolent action produces change in one of three broad ways; conversion, accommodation, or nonviolent coercion. I look at whether change was produced in any one of these three ways, or through a combination of them.
Assessing the Revolution of ‘89 in Czechoslovakia
The nonviolent movement that took place in Czechoslovakia falls within the group of strategic-pragmatic. The movement’s goals were long-term and geared toward defeating the opponent but its initiatives operated in the context of the immediate circumstances. The initiatives were a response to the massacre that occurred on November 17, 1989 and were accompanied by the long-term demands of Czech citizens through the Civic Forum. The Civic Forum was a result of the immediate circumstances but its demands were clearly orchestrated for long-term change. Those long-term demands included resignation of key political figures, a rule of law guaranteed by an independent judiciary, free elections at all levels, a market economy, social justice, respect for the environment, and independent academic and cultural life.
The methods of nonviolent action pursued by the members of the Civic Forum and citizens of Czechoslovakia were combined. They clearly used methods of protests, non-cooperation, and intervention to meet the stated aims. These methods illustrated in the Case Study under the heading; how were the goals pursued? It is not necessary to reiterate them but simply recognize that all three methods were used during this movement. The use of these three methods made the movement in Czechoslovakia a dynamic and powerful movement which brought about change in two of three ways.
The movement in Czechoslovakia clearly produced change through accommodation and nonviolent coercion. When accommodation occurs change is produced through the opponent adjusting to the nonviolent activists but not changing their point of view. This clearly occurred in the beginning of the movement. “Nonetheless, when the police attack on the small demonstration brought two hundred thousand into the streets of Prague, the government abandoned the option of repression.”[50] This was the first sign of change in the form of accommodation. Although government repression yielded to the nonviolent activists the government stood in opposition to the movement that was taking place.
The most significant change occurred through nonviolent coercion. Nonviolent coercion occurs when the opponent loses control, and their power stripped against their will. Nonviolent coercion in this case occurred through “a collective response to generally expanding political opportunities, where the costs and risks of collective action lowered and the potential gains (for the Czech people) increased.”[51] The pressure placed on the government, the masses of people demanding change through the Civic Forum, the Soviet recognition that invasion of 1968 was a direct violation of Czechoslovak sovereignty, and the many other circumstances surrounding the movement, enabled the power of the Czechoslovak government to be stripped. The loss of power and control illustrated on December 10, 1989 when Gustav Husak swore in a new government based on the Civic Forum’s demands and then resigned as president. “Clearly, the (government) had suffered severe blows to central aspects of the ideology on which (years) of governance had been justified,” lost their political base, and their legitimacy.[52] This was a clear sign that the movement had achieved change through nonviolent coercion.
Shortly afterwards, Vaclav Havel, the leader of the Civic Forum was freely elected as the new president and the divide between East and West was further diminished. The nonviolent action in Czechoslovakia was not only effective in producing political change internally but also contributed to the end of the Cold War. Although there are many factors that contributed to the end of the Cold War the nonviolent movement in Czechoslovakia definitely influenced political changes, not only within the country but more importantly, between the East and the West.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of nonviolent action must be viewed in its broader context. It will not always correlate with the immediate goals of a movement but may affect political change in different ways. The case study show that nonviolent action has the potential to be politically effective. Other changes in the political climate “forced government officials to respond to the Soviet Union’s steps toward détente and reform.”[54]
This ultimately improved East/West relations, eventually leading to the end of the Cold War. The failure of nonviolent action “to affect central demands, however, does not prove lack of effect; rather, it suggests a more complicated process of exercising influence.”[55] The disarmament movement demonstrates that nonviolent action can work outside of a narrow scope and exercise influence in a broader context.
The movement in Czechoslovakia demonstrated that nonviolent action can meet its central demands as well as exercise influence in a broader context. The grassroots activism that took place in Czechoslovakia proved how swift and efficient nonviolent action can be with proper timing, influence, organization, and mobilization. Not only did the movement in Czechoslovakia meet its political objectives it also contributed toward collapsing the divide between East and West. More importantly, the movement effected change during the era of the Cold War without the use of force or violence, effectively demonstrating that nonviolent action can be successful.
[1] Sharp, Gene; The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Power and Struggle, (pg. 67) 1973, Porter Sargent Publishers
[2] Sharp, 1973, pg. 64
[3] Sharp, 1973, pg. 64
[4] Gandhi, Mohandas, K.; Nonviolent Resistance, Satyagraha (pg. 1) 1961, Schocken Books, New York
[5] Gandhi, 1961, pg. 358
[6] Gandhi, 1961, pg. 358
[7] Bedau, Hugo A.; Civil Disobedience in Focus, King, M.L.; “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,: (pg. 71) 1991, Routledge, London
[8] Sharp, 1973, pg. xii-xiii
[9] Sharp, 1973, pg. xiv-xv
[10] Sharp, 1973, pg. 357
[11] Sharp, 1973, pg. 357
[12] Sharp, 1973, pg. 69
[13] Clotfelter, James; “Disarmament Movements in the United States,” Journal of Peace Research, (pg. 97) 1986, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
[14] Cortright, David; Peace Works; The Citizen’s Role in Ending the Cold War, (pg. 7) 1993, Westview Press, Inc.
[15] Meyer, David; How the Cold War was Really Won: A View from Below, (pg. 2) 1991, Paper prepared for presentation at the International Studies Association Annual Meeting, March 19-23, 1991, Vancouver, British Columbia.
[16] Cortright, 1993, pg. 9-10
[17] Cortright, 1993, pg. 5
[18] Cortright, 1993, pg. 6-7
[19] Cortright, 1993, pg. 14
[20] Meyer, 1991, pg. 11
[21] Cortright, 1993, pg. 23
[22] Cortright, 1993, pg. 91
[23] Cortright, 1993, pg. 91
[24] Meyer, 1991, pg. 12
[25] Meyer, 1991, pg. 13
[26] Cortright, 1993, pg. 98
[27] Cortright, 1993, pg. 98
[28] Meyers, 1991, pg. 2
[29] Meyers, 1991, pg. 2
[30] Meyers, 1991, pg. 2
[31] Ash, Timothy; We the People; The Revolution of 89, (pg. 80) 1990, Granta Books
[32] Meyers, 1991, pg. 7
[33] Meyers, 1991, pg. 3
[34] Charter 77 was constituted in 1977 by a group of intellectuals in Czechoslovakia. It was established secretly to detest the human rights abuses that were occurring in Czechoslovakia and sought to increase awareness of these abuses throughout the world. Further information on Charter 77 can be found in: Tismaneanu, Vladimir; In Search or Civil Society; Independent Peace Movements in the Soviet Bloc, 1990, Routledge.
[35] Meyers, 1991, pg. 3
[36] Meyer, 1991, pg. 15
[37] Ash, 1990, pg. 103-104
[38] Ash, 1990, pg. 110
[39] Wehr, Paul; Burgess, Guy & Heidi; Justice Without Violence, (pg. 116) 1994, Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., Edelstein, Joel; “Nonviolence and the 1989 Revolution in Eastern Europe.”
[40] Ash, 1990, pg. 90
[41] Meyer, 1991, pg. 15
[42] Ash, 1990, pg. 111
[43] Ash, 1990, pg. 122
[44] Wehr & Burgess, 1994, pg. 116
[45] Ash, 1990, pg. 96
[46] Ash, 1990, pg. 123
[47] Meyer, 1991, pg. 14
[48] Cortright, 1993, pg. 1
[49] Cortright, 1993, pg. 1
[50] Wehr & Burgess, 1994, pg. 118
[51] Wehr & Burgess, 1994, pg. 116-117
[52] Wehr & Burgess, 1994, pg. 119
[53] Meyer, 1991, pg. 6
[54] Meyer, 1991, pg. 9
[55] Meyer, 1991, pg. 17
