By Mark Zirnsak
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Matthew 5:9
The Jesus of the Gospels lived under the brutal occupation of the Roman Empire. He speaks of peacemaking, love of enemies (Mt 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36) and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Mt 26:52).
In the face of oppression by certain religious leaders, he engaged in symbolic acts of non-violent resistance, such as healing on the Sabbath and overturning the tables of the money changers at the temple.
He does not join the Zealots who sought to end the Roman occupation through armed conflict.
Jesus engages in what we would see today as a non-violent movement for reform, which ultimately sees him executed by the authorities he challenges.
His sacrifice and resurrection inspired the Jesus movement to grow and become Christianity.
Mark and Paul Engler, in their 2016 work on non-violent campaigning, ‘This is an Uprising’, point to evidence that highlighting injustice through a public willingness to sacrifice builds movements today.
So, it turns out Jesus was on to something.
In 2011, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan published a groundbreaking study into armed and non-violent resistance movements.
In short, they found non-violent resistance movements were far more likely to succeed than their counterparts that relied on killing.
Further, they were way more likely to lead to functional democracies, while armed struggle would be far more likely to result in brutal dictatorships and a return to civil war.
Chenoweth and Stephan examined 223 armed and 100 non-violent resistance movements between 1900 and 2006 in their book ‘Why Civil Resistance Works’. They excluded wars between governments in their study.
They found non-violent movements were nearly twice as likely to succeed as those relying on armed conflict, as it was easier and less risky for people to support a non-violent movement.
Chenoweth and Stephan found that in 57 per cent of cases, a country was a functioning democracy five years after a non-violent campaign succeeded.
Among countries already democratic when the non-violent resistance campaign occurred, 82 per cent remained democracies after the non-violent campaign succeeded.
By contrast, only three of 55 successful armed struggles established a functioning democracy. Many of those who carry out armed struggle get used to the idea that to make the world a better place, you need to kill the people who oppose you. Once in power, it becomes hard to shake off that idea.
When it comes to external support, Chenoweth and Stephan published a booklet in 2021, ‘The Role of External Support in Nonviolent Campaigns. Poisoned Chalice or Holy Grail?’.
They found external support that provides training in non-violent tactics and small amounts of flexible funding can play a positive role in the success of non-violent movements. International sanctions also boost the likelihood of success for a non-violent movement.
For armed resistance movements, they found that the actions of external parties to support the armed struggle had little or no impact on the conflict. Only military assistance from a foreign government could make a real difference.
For example, think of US military support to the Afghan Mujahideen against the Russian occupation which led to the rise of the Taliban.
Statements of solidarity by external parties for the armed struggle were likely to embolden the armed resistance movement to take greater unnecessary risks. The result was more deaths (particularly of their own forces) without influencing the outcome of the conflict.
From the works of Chenoweth and Stephan, we learn that churches can play a constructive and supportive role for non-violent movements taking on oppressive regimes or brutal foreign occupation, especially through funding.
These movements are far more likely to result in lasting positive change. Jesus was on to something.
Mark Zirnsak is the Synod’s Senior Social Justice Advocate