Peaceful protests work, but only sometimes

Historically and in contemporary times both peaceful and violent means have been used as a means towards political change. The effectiveness of either of these methods – or a combination of both – depends on the overall strategy of a movement and the context in which it is operating. There are of course examples of non-violent protests in South Africa, India, and the South (of the United States) that have proved to be successful in at least forcing ruling parties to respond or make concessions. Yet, we must not forget that it was also the threat of a violent or more extreme alternative (of resistance) in each of these situations that played a role in facilitating change.

In addition three other factors are important: the moral compass of the ruling party, regime cohesiveness and the role of external forces. If a regime is willing to indulge in severe crimes against humanity and it has a close-knit ruling structure (often based on a patronage system) then the chance of success for a peaceful protest are low. Similarly in the absence of external forces that would threaten or isolate a regime — for example in South Africa — the chances are even lower. In Syria, the peaceful protests, which were the primary means of action in the first year of the conflict, never stood a chance because of the regime structure, its lack of a moral compass, and the inaction of the international community.

— The reader is a Dubai-based political analyst