Thursday, 3 October 2013

Revolution U

The Text Revolution U, written by Tina Rosenberg examines a Serbian pro democracy groups called CANVAS which now operates as a global organization. The aim of the group is to educate young pro democracy advocates in effective non-violent opposition and demonstrations. They have worked in South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia but originally began in Serbia under Milosevic.

            The original organization was called Otpor which is the Serbian word for resistance and began in a Serbian cafe at a meeting of young university students in a desperate attempt to find a direction that they could take towards lasting political change. At this meeting the students decided to try and make political activism cool by abandoning attempts at mass protests for long term campaigns that offer funny or interesting forms of dissent for the public to take part in. An example of this would their idea of rolling a barrel with Milosevic's face painted on it down the street and charging by standers a dollar to whack the barrel. When the police arrived they abandoned the barrel and scatted leaving the authorities to arrest a barrel with the face of Milosevic on it. Events like this attracted media attention and public support which allowed the group to avoid attracting the stigma that comes with being aggressive or violent dissenters through the use of protests that are humorous. The key reason this type of tactic is important is because according to Otpor it allows political protest to get support from the middle class which always important. In addition Otpor used other conciliatory tactics when dealing with the police who they would cheer and deliver cookies rather than fight. These tactics represent the overall culture of the organization which has always preferred to work with energetic young activists rather than older opposition groups who may have become more lethargic and less inventive in the campaigning over time.

            After the end of Milosevic’s regime Otpor leaders began to export their philosophy overseas to countries like Zimbabwe and Burma under the new name CANVAS where they stressed the need for groups of dissident young people to achieve a succession of small victories over a period of time. This strategy is due to the philosophy held by CANVAS is that only after much preparation can periods of intense anger in a country be used effectively to overturn a regime. This policy was implemented in Egypt where Mohammed Adel began the April 6th movement after travelling to Serbia and consulting CANVAS. What he learnt allowed him to start organizing people on the streets into the mass protests which the Egyptian revolution is famous for.

            However whilst CANVAS has been successful in countries such as Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Egypt where a certain level of opposition had been allowed by the authoritarian regimes, it has been less successful in countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma where political opposition was stamped out violently. This comparison may demonstrate the one of the strategies of CANVAS which is the achievement of small successes over time does more to affect a healthy long term transition to democracy than sudden large scale acts of revolution.


4 comments:

  1. While I think this form of protesting is great, I have to wonder how much effect they would have in currently non democratic countries. Since the Arab Spring, it would seems that most countries with authoritarian regimes would not allow any room for potential uprising against them. I would assume that most dictators are aware that revolutions can spread to neighboring countries, therefore I think they would be less likely to allow even these smaller forms of protest. The current political climate appears to make the issue much more complicated. Do you think that countries, particularly those in the middle east, will be able to use this type of protest, and do you think that it would have any lasting effects there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia, they did use some of these tactics in Egypt, though how important they were in the runup to the 2011 revolt is debatable.

      Delete
  2. Good summary and discussion Shavez. One question one may ask: does this piece overemphasize the efforts of groups like CANVAS? Couldn't it be the case that other things are going on that are more important than protests like the ones they promote to the success or failure of a revolution? (Consider the case of Burma, which has opened up over the past year or so. Yet this does not seem to have had much to do with these actions).

    You raise an interesting point at the end. Why would we expect sudden, large-scale acts of revolution to be less likely to result in democratic outcomes? Even the Serbian case required a "big push" at the end - huge demonstrations, etc. (Same for the Egyptian case).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you have made a valid point there Julia. I also admire the creativity and tactic employed with these types of protests, particularly their objective exclusion of violent revolt. However, it does seem that in the context of many modern repressive regimes that any form of protest, whether peaceful or violent, are met with swift and often brutal consequences, bringing into question the effectiveness of such methods of rebellion in certain circumstances. To make matters even more complicated and interesting, I was intrigued by Xavier's comments today in the lecture about how some violent responses to peaceful protests can be utilised to inspire outrage and thereby help to mobilise the general public towards revolution. Therefore I think that the strength of the political regime as well as the ability of the protesters to mobilise the public into action equally contribute to the effectiveness of operations such as CANVAS.

    ReplyDelete