Nonviolence Training

Back to table of content

Name: Brainstorming Time: 15 minutes, or longer Goal or purpose of the exercise:

Brainstorming is a group technique designed to generate a large number of ideas in a limited amount of time.

How it's done/facilitator's notes:

The facilitator gives the group a question like: what is nonviolence, or an issue you want to come up with more ideas like: how do we develop a fund-raising strategy. Then ask the group to come up with as much ideas, responses as possible.

Here are 5 recommendations for holding a brainstorming session:

1. Focus on quantity: The greater the number of ideas generated, the more to pick from.

2. No criticism: Criticism, challenges and discussion should be put 'on hold' until the brainstorming is done.

3. Unusual ideas are welcome: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed.

4. Combine and improve ideas: Good ideas can be combined to form a single very good idea, as suggested by the slogan "1+1=3".

5. The facilitator should be aware that a brainstorm usually starts slowly, pick up speed as ideas are sparking other ideas, and then slows down again. This is why some call it "popcorning".

Wrapping up

After all the ideas are up on the wall, ask if there is anything up there that people have a question about, or that they disagree with. Open this up for discussion. You may not need to come to consensus on a brainstorming session. Or you may want to sort out the answers for further discussion.

At a nonviolence training session, you are not trying to come up with a single definition to answer "What is nonviolence?", but through the brainstorm the participants can share many answers to that question. It can be enlightening to do a "What is violence" brainstorm at the same time. The facilitator should pay attention to key words. Check to make sure that words like "power" and "anger" don't just appear only in the violence brainstorm.

back to table of content

By Ruben Dario Pardo Santamaria

1. A hostile context

The peace community of San Jose de Apartado was founded in 1997 and was born in adverse conditions for nonviolent resistance. The Community is located in an area of Uraba, Colombia, where strong economic interests are at play and where armed conflict is waged between guerrillas (the FARC), state forces and (usually working in collusion with the state) paramilitaries. It is an area where political terror, assassination and intimidation has been used to eliminate leaders and activists. The Peace Community itself is formed of displaced people, people whose parents and grandparents were also victims of violence. Throughout its existence, the Peace Community has had to face campaigns to discredit it from the highest levels of national government and the media, especially under the government of Alvaro Uribe.

The Peace Community has more than 1,000 members, even though around 150 members have been killed - by state security forces, by paramilitaries or by the FARC.

2. Towards a strategy of civil resistance

What began with the urgent need to find practical alternatives for displaced people has grown into a project offering an alternative to the current model of society. This has three dimensions:

Resistance to war and forced displacement: establishing a mechanism for the protection of civilians in a context of strong armed conflict. Establishing a sustainable basis for community cohesion, including developing holistic and ecological economic alternatives. Constructing peace: at the everyday internal level of nonviolent forms of relationship; at the political level of condemning the use of violence and supporting a negotiated political solution to the armed conflict: through outreach, spreading the idea of zones of peace and offering guidance to other local communities. 2.1 Economic Strategy

In a war zone, there is not the normal supply of essential goods. Therefore the Community needs to grow its own food, but cooperates with "fair trade" groups to market coca and baby bananas. In addition, it took the initiative to organise meetings and courses (under the title Peasant University or University of Resistance) to share information about ecological forms of agriculture.

2.2 Policy Strategy

The emergence of the Peace Community has been a radical challenge to those who seek to dominate a territory, above all the armed actors of the state, the paramilitaries and the guerrilla. To survive, the Community needs to build relationships that on the one hand reduce the pressure on the Peace Community, and on the other strengthen its resilience - relationships at the local, national and international level.

2.3 Strategy: community cohesion 2.3.1 Agreement policy for coexistence

The founding declaration of the Peace Community lays out principles of demilitarisation and neutrality which represent the common denominator of the community. The act of signing this declaration is a unifying force for the collective.

2.3.2 Integral Training

Training has been vital to the community. First in preparing to establish it - when there were workshops with displaced people and prospective members. Now the Training Committee concentrates internally on strengthening the understanding of and commitment to the Community principles, analysing its situation, and evaluating the whole process of civil resistance. It teaches conflict resolution skills within the Community itself, and aims to strengthen the resolve of Community members not to join any armed group. The Training Committee works not only with families, coordinators and working groups of members of the Community, but also with other families in the area.

2.4 Strategy: protection

This refers to activities to reduce the risk of violation of human rights of Community members and the very process of civil resistance. This involves: - documentation and public denunciation of violations committed by all armed actors; - identification of community spaces by erecting billboards declaring its principles; - disseminating information through small publications, videos, national and international meetings on its territory, national and international tours and since late 2004 with the creation of its own website; - petitions to the national government and increasingly to international agencies, which sometimes have led to favourable verdicts, restrictions placed on US military aid, the trial of soldiers accused of killing Community leaders in February 2005; - protective accompaniment: Peace Brigades International regularly accompany transport to and from the Community, while other international groups, including the US Fellowship of Reconciliation, that provides protection through accompaniments in the community.

3. Proposal for new neutral zones

Unlike "safe areas" created by agreement between armed forces, in the Peace Community is the civilian population itself that has decided to create a physical space and social protection for those not involved in the war. The peace communities are not a mere space of survival amid the bullets, but seek to build peace with social justice, a way of life based on dignity, autonomy and solidarity.

4. Ability to resist repression

The peace community of San Jose de Apartado has been one of the worst hit by political violence in Colombia. Political repression is aimed at breaking the principles and beliefs of those who opt for peace, at spreading mistrust and intimidation, and crippling hat contrast individual and collective levels established. Through selective actions and copies of direct violence, spreads intimidation and mistrust among the population, crippling people's capacity to react.

Persistence in this resistance despite the violence can be partly explained by the absence of better alternatives for people who have been forcibly displaced. However, it also depends on more positive factors: - a strong social consciousness, acting as a subject and not subordinate to political orders; - the perception that, despite the armed actors, the process of resistance has a chance of success; - confidence that nonviolence offers better chances of survival; - an unshakable commitment not to abandon the struggle for which so many martyrs have already given their lives.

5. Different types of resistance

The Peace Community resists at many levels: - resisting malaria, poverty and lack of basic services in such areas of Colombia; - resisting the terror of legal and illegal armed groups; - resisting the temptation of revenge, in a territory where it would be extremely easy to join any armed actor and seek vengeance against an enemy; - resisting the imposition of an exclusive and authoritarian model of society, while proposing a project of life based on a comprehensive vision of dignity and development.

6. As a conclusion

Among the most important factors that have enabled peasants and farmers of San Jose de Apartado to maintain nonviolent resistance during the past 10 years, are:

the accompaniment of entities of the Catholic Church; the Community's democratic and flexible organizational structure, strengthening the sense of belonging and community cohesion; the improvement if the lives of women and children in respect to what they had before; strengthening of internal discipline, respect for the rules of conduct agreed, and loyalty to fundamental principles of neutrality and nonviolence; implementing internal measures of protection; opening up spaces for consultation with governmental actors; implementing economic strategies to meet the basic needs; a progressive process of integration and coordination of actions with other local experiences of civil resistance in different regions of Colombia; training new leaders; the example of martyrs motivating continued resistance; protection offered by international accompaniment; gradual consolidation of a network international support in many countries; the moral strength of the community and its resilience in the face of violence by armed groups.

Back to table of content

By Jungmin Choi

Not long ago the concept ‘nonviolent way of struggle’ began to be used in Korean social movements. Still, many social activists see nonviolence negatively, as a weak, passive, non-resistant form of struggle, partly because of our own history.

For more than 30 years after the Japanese colonial occupation and then the Korean War, South Korea was ruled by an authoritarian military regime. The regime responded to growing aspirations for liberty and democracy with armed terror, and so some people armed themselves, speaking of 'resistant violence'. Nowadays, the state still uses violence, especially against activists, but more activists are coming to accept that there is a nonviolent way of struggle.

There has been some form of nonviolent resistance since the 1980s, such as students objecting to being sent to the frontier facing the north, and there were statements by soldiers denouncing the violence they experienced during military service while civilians protested against questioning by police patrols. However, the concept of nonviolence was limited just to a means of resistance.

Now conscientious objectors to compulsory military service are said to be the first sincere pacifists in Korea who take nonviolence as a philosophy of life. They have advocated the right to refuse unreasonable orders from the state, where nationalism and militarism are prevalent, and they have appealed to the basic good in people, asking them to question fundamentally the military, arms and war. People were deeply moved when they saw conscientious objectors willingly go into prison for 18 months rather than take arms. They have come to know the significance of the act of conscientious objection, watching the continual wars caused by the USA and Israel.

The working group for conscientious objection in Korea is now focusing on giving necessary assistance such as legal and psychological counselling to those who prepare to object and also spreading awareness of the meaning of conscientious objection through a variety of activities, such as press conferences, forums, campaigns and direct actions. The number of conscientious objectors in Korea is still small and the demands on those who make a CO declaration mean that they need support. The CO movement does not have a unified attitude on nonviolent action. For instance, in 2003 when Kang Chul-min declared his conscientious objection, while he was doing his military service, there were a conflict of opinions whether to hold a sit-down demonstration in solidarity, and similar discussions arose concerning university students who made declarations of CO before they were called up. Many do not see that CO itself as one form of nonviolent direct action in someone's life that should connect with other forms of direct action.

Other groups that take nonviolent pacifism as a principled philosophy of their struggle played an important part in the struggle against the US base extension in Pyeongtaek. They used diverse tactics, including imaginative forms of nonviolent direct action that are in striking contrast to the previous ways of struggle. Some campaigners decided to make a 'peace village', squatting in buildings that were abandoned to make way for the base and renovating them as a library, cafe, guesthouse, displaying many works of art donated by artists supporting the campaign. When the bulldozers, backed by armed riot police and private security forces (= 'hired thugs'), arrived to demolish the remaining buildings in the village, villagers and supporters initially succeeded in blocking this, climbing onto roofs or tying themselves to buildings and sitting down in front of bulldozers. However as government force escalated - from a force of 4,000 men in March 2006 eventually reaching 22,000 in September - hundreds of villagers and supporters were arrested or injured as the demolitions went ahead. Despite this people still tried to farm the fields under military occupation, finally giving up in February 2007. The last candlelight vigil of protest was held in March 2007, and the next month villagers and supporters returned to bury a time capsule containing messages and marked by a flag saying 'Return'.

South Korean experience on how to use web resources for nonviolent campaigns

Back to table of content

By Hilal Demir and Ferda Ülker

"nonviolence cannot be described as merely the absence of violence"

Militarism and patriarchy is deeply rooted in Turkish culture. Currently, war in the 'south-east' is based on ethnic discrimination against Kurds although it is officially described as a 'war against terrorism'. Any attempt to question militarism is called 'treason'. The people most affected by the negative consequences of violence are primarily women, children and elders, and also the religious, ethnic and political minorities. Violence is so internalized in Turkish society that alternative perspectives have been made 'unthinkable' - even among those who normally question hierarchy and promote freedom and equality.

The influence of the military can be seen in the following examples:

Only after having done one’s military service, a man is regarded as a „real“ man. The National Security Council (including the chiefs of staff) that as recently as 1997 prevented the winners of the elections forming a government ('the post-modern coup'). Economic power - the Turkish army's financial services company OYAK is one of the most powerful investors in Turkey. The trust of the people - opinion polls show that the military is the institution most trusted.

The army under Mustafa Kemal established the Turkish republic in 1923, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and Kemalist principles remain fundamental to the state, reflected in the criminal code, the maintenance of a powerful army, and the belief in the 'indivisibility of the nation'. These generate a repressive attitudes. Few people see male domination of women as an issue, and physical violence is widely accepted against subordinates, prisoners and within the family.

Beginnings

The term 'nonviolence' was used for the first time in the principles of the Izmir War Resisters' Association (IWRA) in 1992. Within the association, nonviolence was always a discussion point - especially how to find practical ways of living nonviolently in a violent culture. We first used nonviolence training to prepare ourselves for prison visit scenarios when a group member, Osman Murat Ülke, was imprisoned for conscientious objection. Initially nobody from outside approached us to discuss nonviolence. However, now there is more interest - although the War Resisters' Association itself closed in 2001 because of the burn-out of members.

IWRA's commitment to nonviolence put us in sharp contrast with other leftist groups, who did not take our approach seriously and regarded nonviolence as weak and ineffective. We mainly involved antimilitarist, anarchist and feminist activitists. Perhaps the biggest welcome for nonviolence came from the Lesbian Gay Bi- and Trans-sexual (LGBT) movement which was just in the process of becoming structured and so took up nonviolent methods.

As far as political alliances go, the most fruitful interaction was with the women's movement. When we first began we formed a feminist and antimilitarist women's group called “Antimilitarist Feminists". trying to reach out to women's groups. Despite some initial disappointment, we reached many independent women and then began to hold trainings with women's organizations. This change in attitude was related to changes/transformation within the women's movement - in particular a desire to do things their own way rather than on traditional leftist lines. Questioning violence became a priority for women and nonviolence seemed to offer a response. As more women sought personal empowerment, our cooperation with women and women's groups strengthened.

The closest political group was the Conscientous Objection (CO) movement because it was built by the efforts of activists working to promote nonviolence. Although this partnership still continues, there is an individualistic streak in the CO movement that, I believe, makes discussion of nonviolence less effective. Although most Turkish COs are total objectors (that is, rejecting both military service and any civilian substitute), the movement's attitude towards nonviolence is equivocal at times - especially because of support for CO from the Kurdish movement and leftist groups.

Izmir Nonviolent Trainers Initiative

The Izmir Nonviolent Trainers Initiatives (INTI) first formed as part of the IWRA with the additional support of some other people. Also our work was supported and improved in quality thanks to cooperation with German trainers - including training courses at Kurve Wustrow, an international training for trainers organised in Foca, Turkey, in April 1996, and the accompaniment of two German trainers who lived in Izmir from 1998 until 2001.

When IWRA closed in December 2001, the trainers' initiative continued, organising workshops in Izmir and anywhere in the country where we are invited - including in Diyarbakir in the south-east 'crisis' region. Today there are five trainers – four female and one male – who mostly work on a voluntary basis, only receiving travel expenses, although sometimes we have the money to pay a part-time coordinator. In June 2006 we began a course of training for trainers with 20 participants from all over the country.

The aim of INTI is to enhance and establish nonviolent principles and structures as an alternative to militarism, nationalism, hierarchy and patriarchy. Our public activities began with organising demonstrations and seminars on nonviolence and conscientious objection, also publishing pamphlets and looking for international cooperation. Police confiscated a number of our works at the press. In the field of trainings the group worked with activists from extra-parliamentary groups, from human rights, women's and lgbt groups and from parties. Additionally, the group cooperated with the Human Rights Centre of the Izmir Lawyers’ Association to train lawyers and policemen about human rights issues. In general, issues covered in our trainings include: creating non-hierarchical structures for grassroots and oppositional political work, consensus decision-making, discussion of militaristic structures within the society (starting from the family) and nonviolent alternatives. The individual behaviours and actions of the participants are always the basic and central point of our workshops. For our work, we reflected on theoretical analyses and practical experiences of nonviolence and nonviolent actions (starting with Thoreau and Gandhi and leading to today’s examples). We included reflections on anarchistic approaches to nonviolence, on Augusto Boal’s Theater of the Oppressed and Gene Sharp’s strategies of nonviolence.

Our group believes that it is possible to eliminate all kinds of inequalities, discrimination and thus violence and to develop nonviolent actions and methods for social and political change. Therefore, with the principle “Nonviolence is not an aspiration to be achieved in the future, but the very means to achieve such a goal” our group starts questioning everyday life practices that may seem to be “neutral”. For over ten years our group has been learning, practising and teaching the means and methods of nonviolence, an attitude towards life that we are now developing as a life principle. First, we offer "introductory" one day trainings for diverse organisations and for individual activists who question violence within their agenda. Second, we offer “issue-based trainings” on particular topics requested by groups based on their needs - these have included prejudice, conflict resolution, communication, sexism, and so on. Third, we offer a one-week intensive “training for trainers” session with selected individuals who have taken part in the first two training sessions and who want to develop themselves into trainers. Since 2002, we conducted the first and second parts of trainings with diverse groups1 working with women, LGBT, and human rights, ecology, peace and antimilitarism in Izmir, Ankara, Antalya, Adana and Diyarbakır. The individuals who participated in the trainings and want to be trainers were people who had already started questioning violence and had been trying to integrate nonviolence methods within their institutions and their individual practices. However, these people mentioned their lack of information and experience about “nonviolent action” for example in Diyarbakır it was identify the need to learn on developing nonviolent solutions primarily for their fundamental activities (like honor killings, violence against women, etc). They need empowerment in their work and enhanced capacity on nonviolence in order to create new solutions to the on-going problems. Having received an constantly increasing demand for a “train the trainers” training module, we have agreed that the third phase of the nonviolence trainings would be useful to a great degree. We are aware that it is impossible to cover all principles of non-violence in a one-week training. One of the solutions we found to this problem is to continue dialogue and seek possibilities for future meetings of supervision and feedback. Furthermore during the training, a network between the trainers all over Turkey will be formed and the operational principles of such a network will be established. This network of trainers approach would ensure the sustainability of our dialogue, continuing sharing of knowledge and experience among the practitioners of nonviolence trainers, and our collaborative dissemination of non-violence training both at local and national levels.

Our aims

improving and strengthening the culture of democracy and human rights by introducing the concept of non-violence. questioning the culture of violence (which has a militaristic and patriarchal character in Turkey) in order to saw seeds of the culture of non-violence raising awareness of and struggle with discrimination, in all walks of life. Training trainers in order for them to work for these ends by gaining practical experience and increasing their capacity of training such that they can facilitate their own training groups during the one year period.

Nonviolent Campaigns

Looking at examples of nonviolent campaigns in Turkey, we can say that these activities have not been organized in an entirely nonviolent way. While nonviolence was one of the fundamental principles, we must state that these organizations lacked some of the qualities of a truly nonviolent action, such as preparing for the event with prior nonviolence trainings. One of the longest winded campaigns in this regard was the Militourism Festival. This festival, held annually on May 15th (International Conscientous Objectors' Day), consisted of visiting prominent militarist symbols in various cities, organization of alternative events and declarations of conscientious objections Another was the “We Are Facing It” Campaign. This campaign aimed at facing and coming to terms with the war that has been going on in Turkey; it was spread over the length of an entire year with major actions held every once in 3 months. The aim was to prevent people from ignoring this war with the use of nonviolent means such as street theatre.Another nonviolent action was the “Rice Day.” This action was held in Ankara, the locus of official administration, and specifically in front of a military barracks. We gathered there in order to say “we exist, we are here.” As antimilitarists who subverted societal roles in our activities, we used the symbol of the Rice Day in order to enhance group solidarity and end our indivisibility. Apart from these major activities, smaller organizations and actions were also mobilized for short-term political intervention purposes.

Epilogue

Although we have often been marginalized throughout the short history of nonviolence in Turkey and not as effective as we would like, we are becoming more visible thanks to the alliances forged with the women's and LGBT movements here. This is further aided by the fact that conscientious objection began being discussed in the public arena. Increasing demands from different political groups for implementing nonviolence training and methods in their programmes affirm this trend.

Back to table of content

On September 11, 1973, the Chilean junta, backed by the CIA and the Nixon Administration, overthrew the democratically elected government of Socialist President Salvador Allende. Priscilla Hayner, in her book Unspeakable Truths, Confronting State Terror and Atrocity (2001) outlines the devastating impact: “The regime espoused a virulent anticommunism to justify its repressive tactics, which included mass arrests, torture (estimates of the number of people tortured range from 50,000 to 200,000), killings, and disappearances.” The dictatorship assassinated, tortured, and exiled thousands of political opponents and visionaries.

Under these conditions, a foreboding silence, the result of threats and terror, hung over Chile. Some of us wondered, “could Gandhian insights about the power of nonviolence help the struggle to defy the terror?”

Nonviolence refers to a philosophy and strategy of conflict resolution, a means of fighting injustice, and — in a broader sense — a way of life, developed and employed by Gandhi and by followers all around the world. Nonviolence, then, is action that does not do or allow injustice.

Crying Out the Truth

A few of us decided to try to inspire others to speak up against the dictatorship by “crying out the truth.” We faced a double suffering: the pain involved in enduring the dictatorship’s violence, and the suffering caused by keeping silent out of fear. To not cry out while those we love were killed, tortured, and disappeared was unendurable. Clandestine pamphlets and leaflets were printed. Slogans that denounced human rights violations were painted on the walls at night at great risk to safety. Underlying these actions was the principle of active nonviolence: since there is injustice, the first requirement is to report it, otherwise we are accomplices. The clandestine actions helped spread the principle of telling the truth and acting on it. Yet, despite the risks, we needed to move beyond clandestine protests: we needed to move the protests against the Chilean junta into the public arena.

Activating the Public Movement against Torture

José Aldunate, a Jesuit priest who became the leader of the Sebastian Acevedo Movement Against Torture in Chile, says in his memoirs, “A comrade came to us and brought up the fact (of torture). We educated ourselves about torture and about the dynamics of nonviolence. We watched a film on Mahatma Gandhi. I was more motivated to protest against poverty, but I responded to the discipline of the group. We deliberated and decided to undertake a nonviolent demonstration to denounce torture... to break the barriers of silence and hiding with regards to torture, we had an obligation to denounce it in public. We needed to shake the population’s conscience.”

On September 14, 1983, ten years after the regime took power, the anti-torture movement was born in an action in front of the headquarters of the National Investigation Center, 1470 Borgoño St., in Santiago. Around 70 persons interrupted traffic, unfurling a banner which read “Torturing Done Here.” They shouted their denunciation and sang a hymn to liberty. The group returned to this scene to denounce the regime’s crimes against humanity at least once a month until 1990.

In order to act, we needed to openly defy the State of Emergency provisions decreed by the junta in order to terrorize the population. We needed to break through our own sense of powerlessness, isolation, and fear.

The movement denounced torture. It left to other entities the task of investigating and making declarations. It had no meeting place, no secretariat, no infrastructure. It met in the streets and plazas when it was time to act. It had no membership list. Participants came by personal invitation, as the movement had to avoid infiltration from the secret police and other repressive institutions. Instructions were passed from person to person. Participants were mainly trained during the actions themselves, where we evaluated each action on the spot.

Participants faced legal and illegal sanctions when detained and prosecuted as they often were. Tear gas, beatings, detention, and prosecution were common practices used in retaliation against demonstrators. Torture was also a possible consequence of being arrested. Not only Sebastian Acevedo movement participants faced these sanctions, also reporters and journalists willing to report on the actions and the issues that were exposed. At some of the actions, there were as many as 300 participants. Some 500 people participated in total. There were Christians and non-Christians, priests, monks, slum dwellers, students, aged persons, homemakers, and members of various human rights movements; people of every class, ideology, and walk of life.

The main goal was to get rid of torture in Chile. The means chosen was to shake up national awareness (consciousness raising) and rouse the conscience of the nation until the regime would get rid of torture or the country would get rid of the regime. In 1988, after a widespread anti-intimidation campaign, the nonviolent “Chile Sí, Pinochet No” campaign helped, to Pinochet’s shock, to defeat a plebiscite designed to ratify Pinochet’s rule.

Efforts to end the culture of impunity that arose during the Pinochet years, and to engage in national reconciliation, continue, but nonviolent protest provided an important means, amongst others, to overthrow the dictatorship.

Roberta Bacic is a Chilean human rights researcher and activist who now lives in Northern Ireland. She has worked with War Resisters International’s Dealing with the Past Program. A version of this article was previously published in the "100 Years of Gandhian Nonviolent Action" special issue of Peacework Magazine. For more info on Gandhi and Gandhianism, see more WRI links, and selected links to historical Gandhianism from the Peacework issue mentioned above.

Back to table of content

Prisoner support groups

The experience of MOC (Movimiento de Objeción de Conciencia) in helping people in prison is based on the civil disobedience campaign against obligatory military service - the campaign of insumisión 1971-2002 in which thousands of insumisos were jailed. During this period, various ways of supporting prisoners were suggested and tried. One of the most valued, without a doubt, were the 'support groups'.

Let's imagine a concrete case in order to illustrate how these groups function. Bixente Desobediente is an insumiso who will have to serve a sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day. He needs to convene a meeting with people close to him (family, friends) plus someone from the movement. The first meeting is attended by his girlfriend, his sister, three friends from the neighbourhood, a university pal, a cousin, a guy he met at an anti-militarism discussion group and a neighbour. This group reviews his decision to be an insumiso, discussing his motives and the consequences it could bring. As not all of them understand concepts like civil disobedience, nonviolence, direct action, and antimilitarism, the group looks at these too. In the following meetings, they establish goals, and after much brainstorming and discussion, they come up with the following objectives:

1) Emotional support:

Supporting Bixente emotionally is important during his time before his trial, in court itself and in prison. One suggestion is to hire a bus so that everybody who wants can go to court and witness the trial. Other suggestions are to visit Bixente in prison and encourage others to write letters. The idea is that he should not feel alone and has continual contact with supportive friends. This support should also extend to those close to him, such as his parents.

2) Logistic support:

Both before his trial and in prison, Bixente will need material support. Before his trial, he goes into hiding to avoid arrest and pre-trial detention, so people need to bring his things from his previous place of residence to his current location so that he is not caught. In prison, he needs books and paper to continue his studies. This is also work of the support group.

3) Political work:

The MOC, the movement to which Bixente belongs, is in charge of the political work. However, the support group can also collaborate with this work,joining in protest actions organised by MOC - especially those connected with his trial and imprisonment. At the same time, the groups can reach out politically in the places that Bixente is known - his neighborhood and university - to maximize the benefit provided by the disobedience of Bixente and other prisoners. Also the support group can put together an email list to keep people informed about his case and a webpage with information about Bixente's case, antimilitarism, war tax resistance to military spending, peace education, and links to related pages. Every now and then, Bixente will write a letter that can be circulated. The support group should coordinate with the MOC - for instance, one member attending MOC meetings - and check that their actions in line with the MOC's overall campaign.

The support groups are a great help, not only for the prisoner, but also for the MOC. They share the work and also serve as entry points for people to join the movement. Coordination between the political group and the support group, and with the prisoner is essential. Stable, frequent communication is important. The political criteria come from the political movement, not from the prison; however visits to the prison by members of both groups is important for the development and coordination of the political work.

Back to table of content

Evaluation allows us to learn from our experiences. Always everybody makes some kind of informal evaluation of an event - be it personal reflections, talking it over with friends, or a meeting of a group of core organisers ('leaders'). What we propose here, however, is that there be a structure for feeding back lessons from an event. Rather than leave evaluation to chance or confined to an elite, it should be set up as a planned and collective activity - valuing the input of people who have played different roles, who bring different kinds of experience and even levels of commitment. Preferably everyone who participated in an action or in organising an event should be encouraged to take part in evaluating it.

When evaluations are a regular part of our work, they give us the chance for honest feedback on the process and content of the work and help us to improve in the future. Bear in mind that there will be considerable differences of opinion and that it is not necessary for the group to come to agreement on the matter. It is also important to point out what was successful as well as what went wrong / Begin with positive evaluations wherever possible. The structure of the evaluation should be planned carefully.

Some of the most obvious points brought up in an evaluation might be quantitative - we handed out so many leaflets, we attracted so many people, we gained so much media coverage, we blocked a road for so long. If such information is important in evaluating the campaign development, make sure that somebody monitoring it - that you have a way of counting the number of protesters, that a media group collects information about coverage. However, sometimes the numbers game can distract attention from the main purpose, especially in the case of repeated protests. Maybe more protesters arrived but the action made less impact and first-time protesters felt useless, got bored or scared or in some other way were put off getting more involved. Maybe a military base entrance was blockaded for a longer time, but the action reached fewer people or was somehow less empowering. This means that criteria for evaluation need to be linked with the strategic purposes of a particular event.

Here we present you with a check list that can help you in the evaluation of an action but can also be used in other areas of your work:

Action Evaluation 1. Vision – Strategy - Objectives

   Was there an overall vision/strategy/objective?
   
   Was it relevant to the problem/conflict?

   Did the participants know who initiated the action?
   
   Were the participants aware of the vision/strategy/objectives?

2. Principles and Discipline

   Was there a clear discussion and agreement on discipline for the action?

   Was it followed during the action?

Were the planned tactics and those actually carried out consistent with the discipline?

Did any of the participants feel that they themselves or others failed to follow the agreed upon discipline?

3. Preparation and Training

   Was the preparation/training appropriate?
   
   Was the preparation/training adequate?
   
   Did it actually aid the participants in coping with the unexpected?

   Did it meet the needs of those involved?

   Did it meet the expectations of those involved?

   Was the necessary community feeling developed?

4. Tactics

   Were the planned tactics adequate?
   
   Were the tactics, as planned, actually carried out?

   Did they meet the needs and expectations of those involved?

   Were unexpected problems adequately dealt with?

   Was this done in a way consistent with the discipline/vision/objective?

5. Organisation

Did the structure/organisation of the action fit its objective/strategy/vision/discipline?

Was it organized in a democratic way?

6. Impact

A.On the participants

Was it relevant?

Did it invite/create participation?

Did the participants feel in control of the action?

Did it increase the initiative and confidence of the participants?

B.On those to whom it was addressed

Was it understood?

Were the objectives reached?

Did it close or open options for further action and communication?

Were there responses from individuals (opponents) that differed from the institutions that were a part of it?

How did these responses relate to the objectives of the action?

C.On others

Did they understand it?

Were they alienated by it?

Did it have any unexpected results?

Were people moved in our direction (neutralized, attracted, catalyzed)?

This evaluation form was developed at the International Seminar on Training for Nonviolent Action held in Cuernavaca, Mexico in July 1977.

Other resources for evaluation

back to table of content

Every action requires a range of different tasks - some very visible (i.e. the people blocking a street, the press spokesperson), other less visible, and more in the background. It is the role of the Coordinator/Organizer, or the facilitator at meetings, to identify what roles are needed and how they can be filled. Each of these tasks are equally important, as all together make an action possible. Some of these tasks, like outreach and organizing, may be shared by several people. And those people may take on other tasks, such as scouting the site. Consider rotating tasks where possible, such as meeting facilitation. It's important that the people responsible for various tasks during an action work together as a team, which takes preparation before the action. You can find more details on some of these tasks in this handbook, especially in Nonviolent Campaigns, Role of Media, Working in Groups, Legal Support, and Jail Support.

Before action Coordinator/Organizer Nonviolence Trainer Fundraisers Research Scouting the site or route Outreach and organizing Logistics and support Meeting facilitator Prop, sign and banner making, Painters, Graphic artists, etc. Media outreach: Send out media advisory and media release Media kits Writers During action People risking arrest (committing civil disobedience) Support People Police Liaison Peacekeepers/monitors Deployment Team/ Diversion Media spokesperson Communication team Demonstrators/Sign-holders/Chanters/Singers/ Hand out literature etc. Videographer Still photographer Medic/EMT/Medical Team Legal Observer(s) Jail Support Contact person After action Legal Support Lawyer Meeting facilitator for evaluation Documentarian/Historian/Archivist Fundraisers Public speakers Letter writers to decision-makers and newspaper editorial boards

Adapted from www.rantcollective.net

Back to table of content

Introduction

Legal systems are different in every country. However, for actions where it is likely that participants will be arrested, it is always useful to have a 'legal support team'. This advice on forming such a team in Britain is adapted from the first section of a much longer briefing by the Activist Legal Project at: http://www.activistslegalproject.org.uk

Legal support may be a background but it can be absolutely vital. You may be the last home after the action, often spending hours hanging around police stations waiting for activists to be released. You won't share the glamour or get photographed, but without legal support some actions aren't possible. Perhaps if you weren't there, half of those at the 'front-end' of the action wouldn't take part!

What are the Aims of Legal Support? To make sure everyone going on the action is prepared for arrest To liaise with police and solicitors to ensure that arrested activists have appropriate support whilst in custody To ensure that once released activists have the emotional and practical support they need Legal Support Group Roles

The number of people involved in the legal support group will depend upon the size of the action and the number of arrests expected. A number of essential roles have to be fulfilled:

Preparing a written legal briefing for the action, including information on arrest procedure, what happens at the police station, likely offences, likely outcomes, bail and first court hearing. Preparing and distributing 'bustcards' to people going on the action - these contain phone numbers in case of arrest Staffing a phone line (the legal support number), waiting for calls from detainees at police stations. Co-ordination - preparing and updating a definitive list of who has been arrested, including their contacts details, and whether they have been released Police station support - giving support at the police station(s) to arrestees, liaising with solicitors at the police station(s) and meeting detainees on their release from custody Logistics - organising vehicles, drivers, and possibly accommodation to collect and house people released from police custody Organise a defendants' meeting after the action

Unlike legal observers, who do risk arrest by joining activist on the ground, the Legal Support Group should at no stage jeopardise their position with regard to arrest. You are no use to anyone on the inside of a police cell!

For more information on setting up a legal support for a big mass action 'Setting up a legal team' on the US based website: http://www.midnightspecial.net

For Further legal information and workshops contact

Legal Activist Project

info (at) activistslegalproject.org.uk

http://www.activistslegalproject.org.uk

Back to table of content

Planning an action

There are times when you'll be preparing a one-off action, perhaps as your contribution to someone else's campaign, or as a stand alone event in itself. Other times your action will be part of your wider campaign strategy with each and every action being a step towards your overall campaign aims. Here we provide a check up list to keep in mind while planning an action:

Before the action

Framework What is the analysis of the situation? What structure will the group use? Who makes the decisions and how? What is the strategic goal (i.e., who are we trying to influence, and what do we want them to do)? What is the political objective (what is the action or event)? How does this event communicates its goals before, during and after the event? How does the group define its commitment to nonviolence (are there nonviolence guidelines or states principles)? What will the scenario be? (including place and time) Who will provide overall coordination of the event? When and how do you expect the action to end?

(see the Campaign section "Developing effective strategies" and "Components of a Campaign" for more ideas and exercises)

Outreach Will the group be trying to work with other groups or communities? If so, who will make the contacts? Will the group have a flyer, explaining to the public what it is doing? If so, who will prepare it? What publicity will you do? Will you try to reach other people to join you? If so, who will do it? What kind of media work will you do? Will you send out a press release ahead of time? Will there be spokespeople during the event, ready to talk to the press? Will there be a Media Kit with "talking points"? Will you need a Media Sub-committee?(check the media section). Participants preparation What opportunities do participants in the action have to prepare? Are their orientation sessions? Affinity group development? nonviolence training? skills training? legal briefing? Are the participants empowered to make decisions about the scenario? How is that done? Is the group process clear to all? Is it clear that there are many roles needed for an effective action, not just those doing the "direct action"? Logistical planning Are the logistics regarding the time and place well planned? Have all the materials been prepared and is there a distribution plan? During the action Is there a communication system between those in various roles roles such as police liaison, legal observers, media spokesperson, Medical team, people risking arrest, support people and demonstrators? Who is documenting the action with photographs and video? Is the decision-making process clear? After the action If people were arrested, is there legal and jail support? Is follow-up media work being done - spreading info on the action to mainstream and alternative media? Has the group doing an evaluation of the action? Does the group plan to document the action (creating a case study)? What are your next steps? Will this action lead to the development of a campaign? If part of a campaign, how does it change the situation?

Back to table of content

By Majken Sorensen

We usually use nonviolent action about serious problems. Thinking about an action in humorous terms may therefore seem to be a strange way to deal with the issue, and not your first choice. However, humour and seriousness may be much more closely related than at first they appear. Almost all good humour thrives on contradictions and absurdity, and nonviolent action often tries to point out the contradiction between the world as it is, and the world as we want it to be. Humour is powerful because it is turning the world as we know it upside down and escapes the logic and reasoning that is an inevitable part of the rest of our lives.

How to start?

If humour doesn’t come to you easily, don’t despair, it can be learned. Watch your opponent: If there is a contradiction between what he says, and what he does, might this be the basis for a good joke? The closer you stick to the truth about what your opponent is saying and doing, the better the humour will work. Almost all dictators will say that what they are doing is "for the good of the people”. That kind of statement might be contradicted by their actions.

Using humour wisely

Don’t overdo it – humour should be used with moderation and works best if it is complemented with a serious message. Choose the object of your humour carefully!

If you are making a political action, you want a political message, and you want to stick to the point. How people look, their way of speaking or sexual habits are not good subjects. Making jokes about such things may be fun within your own group, but are usually not the way to reach out to other people and take attention away from the political point you want to make. At the end of this section, you can read two examples of actions that stick to the politcal points and don’t get sidetracked.

Why use humour?

Using humour in your actions can be useful in a number of ways. First, it should be fun for those of you who participate in the action. Humour has a potential to prevent and counter activist burnout, although it is not a magic solution.

Using humour is also a way to increase the chance of getting attention from media, potential supporters and bystanders. Journalists who know that they will get good images and a lively story from your group are more likely to show up when you announce that something is going to happen.

If you are part of a small movement that wants to expand, humour will be a way of showing potential members that although you work on a serious issue, you are still capable of enjoying life.

The power of humour

Humour is a powerful way to relate to your opponent, as the 'absurdity' of your actions will change both the relationship and the logic of rational argumentation. Good humorous actions are difficult to respond to for both the police and the opponent himself. It can give you a perfect opportunity for creating a “dilemma action”, which means that no matter what your opponent does, he has lost and is likely to appear weaker in the eyes of both bystanders and the people on “his” side. But be prepared for harsh reactions if you humiliate anybody. When you make it difficult for your opponent to find an “appropriate” reaction (adequate from his point of view), frustration might cause a violent reaction.

Examples of humorous actions

Two examples can illustrate some of the points above. We don’t recommend that you copy them directly, as your context is likely to be very different. But they can show how powerful humour can be:

In Norway in 1983, a small group of total objectors organised in the group “Campaign against Conscription”, (KMV in Norwegian) were refusing both military and alternative service. They wanted to create public debate and change the law that gave them 16 months in prison. The state refused to call it “prison” and instead labelled it “serve their service in an institution under the administration of the prison authorities”. To avoid having political prisoners, there were officially no trials, no prisoners, and no punishment. The cases of the total objectors went through the courts only to identify the objector, and the result was always the same, 16 months in prison. Sometimes the prosecutor never showed up because the result was clear anyway, so KMV exploited this in one of their actions:

One of the activists dressed up as the prosecutor and overplayed his role and demanded that the total objector get even longer in prison because of his profession (he was a lawyer). During the procedure in the court, nobody noticed anything wrong in spite of the “prosecutor’s” exaggerations, and one week later KMV sent their secret video recording of the case to the media and the result was that most of the Norwegian public was laughing.

This example clearly illustrates the power of turning things upside down. A friend of the accused playing the prosecutor, and demanding a stronger punishment than what the law can give, is a parody of the court. In this action, KMV activists satirised the absurdity of having a court case when there is nothing to discuss, and succeeded in getting attention from both media and “ordinary people”. In addition to turning the roles upside down, the parody of the court also exposed the contradiction between what the Norwegian state said and what it did. If the politicians call Norway a democracy, and claim that it doesn’t have any political prisoners, why are people sent to prison for their beliefs? And how come that the imprisonment is not even called a prison sentence, but an administrative term for serving their alternative service? This is an absurd situation, and through dramatising it in a humorous frame, KMV could cut through all rational explanations and make people understand that this did not make sense.

However, this case can also serve to make the important point, that the activist using humour should be aware of the context it is used in. If you want to avoid long prison terms, imitating this kind of action cannot be recommended.

In the other example, we move from democratic Norway, to dictatorial Serbia in the year 2000 before the fall of Slobodan Milošević. To support agriculture, Milošević was placing boxes in shops and public places asking people to donate one dinar (Serbian currency) for sowing and planting crops. As a response, the youth movement Otpor arranged its own collection called “Dinar za Smenu”. Smenu in Serbian is a word with many meanings; it can mean change, resignation, dismissal, pension and purge. This action was repeated several times in different places in Serbia, and consisted of a big barrel with a photo of Milošević. People could donate one dinar, and would then get a stick they could use to hit the barrel. On one occasion, a sign suggested that if people did not have any money because of Milošević’s politics, they should bang the barrel twice. When the police removed the barrel, Otpor said in a press release that the police had arrested the barrel, and that the action was a huge success. They claimed they had collected enough money for Milošević’s retirement, and that the police would give the money to Milošević.

This is an example of a dilemma action, because Otpor is leaving both Milošević and the police with no space for reaction. If the police do not take away the barrel, they lose face, and when they do something, Otpor continues the joke by calling it arrest of a barrel and saying the police will give Milošević the money for his retirement. No matter what the regime does, it has lost.

You can find Majken's dissertation on humour and nonviolence at:

the website of the Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies, Coventry University

Back to table of content

By Roberta Bacic with thanks to Clem McCartney

Introduction

People protest for many reasons but often it is because we are confronted with a situation to which we must respond and take a stand. The reality we face - be that our own or that of others - pushes us to act/react/challenge/change what we are experiencing and seeing. We forget to take into serious consideration the possible consequences of any such choice. Positive consequences are often empowering. Negative consequences can be disempowering. We need to think about them in advance to be prepared for the next steps but also so we are not surprised by them and suffer even more stress.

Consequences of taking a stand

In taking a stand, we may be putting ourselves into situations that will push us to our limits and put ourselves at risk. If this happens, negative experiences will be almost inevitable and fear will most likely surface as a response. In situations of insecurity and anguish, those feelings will merge: fear of being arrested, fear of being denounced, fear of being tortured, fear of being caught in an illegal meeting, fear of being betrayed, fear of again not achieving our goal, etc. Fear of the unknown (what happens if I am arrested?) and also of the known, be that a specific threat by phone or being aware of what has happened to others. We need to know what can be done to avoid those consequences or cope with them when they arise.

Three main elements can help us to function: confidence and solidarity with our fellow protesters, good training and emotional preparation and debriefing. (resource list at end? More Description needed?) For more on go to http://wri-irg.org/nonviolence/nvse07-en.htm

Some of the consequences we need to be prepared for.

1. Dealing with fear consequences

When we think of traumatic consequences we immediately think of the physical consequences. Being manhandled, arrested or beaten and our human rights violated. This is a greater risk in some societies than others, and people protesting in very militaristic and authoritarian states are particularly courageous. But all of us will normally feel at least some anxiety and fear and at least be aware of the risk of physical pain or discomfort. These fears may immobilise us. But it is not good to ignore them. If we are not prepared our natural reactions in the situation may actually lead to greater hurt. For example we may have an urge to run, but if we start running we lose our discipline and those opposing us may be tempted to attack at that moment. Being prepared, rationally, emotionally and practically, is therefore important and training in fear control is very helpful. The physical risk is well understood but other risks are not less real and receive more attention here. See Consequences of fear Exercise.

You can also look at a specific example on http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/node/232.

2. The strength of coming out in public

We need to be aware that we are choosing to stand outside conventional opinion. It is not so difficult to share our feelings in private with those who share our views, although we may worry about being betrayed. Coming out in public is more difficult. We are taking a stand not only against the state but also against common social attitudes. The very reason that we need to protest is to challenge those conventions, but knowing that does not make it easy. We are exposing ourselves. We think of Women in Black in Israel who simply stood there as a silent witness to what they could not accept in their society. Now that form of witness has been used in Serbia, Colombia and elsewhere. Solidarity with our colleagues is very important in such situations, and to create space to air our feelings and deal with them. Even those who appear confident may have worries that they need to acknowledge and deal with. Use a Hassle line exercise to practice expressing our position.

3. Preparing ourselves to deal with distress

There are other risks and other consequences that are subtler but for that very reason can be more distressing. We may face disrespect and humiliation, be mocked and goaded by bystanders or the state forces. Again Women in Black come to mind, spat at and abused by a hostile public, yet remaining silent and not reacting. This can be emotionally distressing. Role playing the situation in advance at a training or meeting of the participants helps us to prepare ourselves emotionally and to understand more fully the motivations (and fear) of our opponents. Solidarity and confidence in our fellow protesters is again important and that is partly built up by such rehearsals. Less emotionally distressing, because it is less immediate, is bad publicity. The press, who may libel us with all kinds of inaccuracies, may challenge our good faith and motivations. Preparing ourselves for such humiliation makes it easier to cope with it when it comes.

4. Putting yourself in the position of the other

We may even seek out humiliation as part of the statement we are trying to make, as when protesters try to put themselves into the situation of people they are defending. Many groups have done street theatre playing the parts of prisoners and guards at Guantanamo Bay. Here unanticipated feelings rise to the surface, which participants sometimes find difficult to control. The “prisoners” may in fact begin to feel violated while the “guards” find themselves entering into the experience too enthusiastically or on the contrary feel a sense of revulsion. Either way the participants may feel defiled and polluted. To deal with such possibilities they need to be prepared for such reactions in themselves and be debriefed sensitively afterwards. Another example was the protests over factory farming when volunteers used their own bodies to model slabs of meat. The reaction may be to feel really enthusiastic and liberated by taking a stand or alternatively troubled at the situation they have put themselves into.

5. Dealing with disillusionment

Sometimes we have few problems before and during the protest but it is a real blow if we seem to have had no impact. The huge protests against the war in Iraq on the 15 February 2003 did not stop the war. Our worst fears were realised. Not surprisingly, many people were disillusioned and disempowered. Naturally they asked “Was it worth doing it?” They may not want to take part in any other actions on this or other issues, feeling it worthless. What can be done to address this disillusionment? We need opportunities to reflect together on what has happened and what we can learn from the experience. See Evaluation section. We need to adjust our expectations. Protests are important to show our strength, but they alone will not stop a war.

6. Dealing with success in our actions

As well as worrying that a situation may turn out worse than we anticipated, paradoxically we might also find it hard to cope with what might on the surface seem positive - for instance, if the security forces act more humanely than we anticipated or the authorities engage with us and seem willing to consider our demands. This can have an unsettling effect if we have steeled ourselves for confrontation. What happens to all the adrenaline which has been built up in our bodies? What do these developments do to our analysis? Are we wrong in our analysis of the situation? Should we trust the system more? Or are we being duped by sweet words? Our movement may achieve more solidarity when we are faced with harsh opposition and may fracture when that does not materialise. Therefore we need to be ready to know what responses might be most effective and test out through Role playing what is possible and when it happens we need to be able to collectively assess the situation and act appropriately.

7.When the levels of aggression rises up

Many of us have been shocked at the aggression which arises during a nonviolent protest and not only from those opposed to the protest. We may find a wave of aggression rising up in ourselves when we are manhandled by authorities and even if we do not react that feeling can make us very uncomfortable and doubtful. Or other protesters may start to riot and we have to be able to find an appropriate response. Do we join in, leave or hold our ground continuing the protest nonviolently as planned? There is little time to think in such situations, so such possibilities need to have been thought through in advance and we need to have our alternatives clear so that quiet decisions can be made. Use Decision making, Role playing and De-escalation exercises.

Different contexts

We might be protesting in the North in states and cultures, which claim to be liberal, democratic. We might be in an authoritarian regime. But we should not assume that protest is easier in liberal democracies. Some such states can be very harsh in their treatment of protest. There are other factors that determine what is the potential of protest and its limits. The society may be closed or open. In a closed society the risks are greater because dissidents can disappear and there is little possibility of any accountability. It may have a functioning judicial system, independent of the government, which can act as a check on human rights abuses. The culture of the society is also a significant factor as it may value conformity and respect for authority. Or the society may feel weak and vulnerable to the pressures of modernity or of the influence of other states and therefore any form of protest is seen as disloyal and destructive.

While protest is more difficult in some situations than others, all the issues I have discussed here may arise in any context, albeit with varying intensity.

Conclusions

If we prepare for the mixture of emotions and reactions which may result from our protest, build solidarity with our colleagues and analyse and debrief ourselves on the consequences of our actions, then we are better placed to continue the struggle for a better society, even though we may know that that will not be achieved in our lifetime, if at all.

However if we do not prepare well and deal well with the consequences, then we may end up not helping anyone, not even ourselves. We may get discouraged and decide to give up or take up other types of strategies that may be counterproductive, such as mainstream politics and the use of force. Or we may get into a pattern of just protesting for its own sake, without any strategic sense. As such, we may appear superficially to be still engaged in the struggle and others may admire our persistence, but we have lost a purpose for all the energy we expend and our ineffectiveness and purposefulness may discourage others to engage. If - as I believe - we have a duty to protest, then we also have a duty to prepare ourselves well: to identify the risks to our physical and emotional well being, and take steps to ensure that we can overcome these risks and continue the struggle in a positive and effective manner, keeping true to our ideals. Last, but not least, let’s keep trying, have some fun while we do it and by that give peace a chance. We are not the first ones in doing it, nor will be the last ones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NRriHlLUk