Is Civil Disobedience the Next Phase?

A couple of weeks ago on Bec Hamilton's blog, activist Tim Nonn posted a call for a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience from the Darfur movement. As I said to Tim, I find the idea provocative. However, while I've always been interested in the idea of civil disobedience from a personal/moral standpoint, I'm still left wondering what the end goals and objectives of such a campaign are, and how the tactic will be effective --- especially, as Bec notes, when the topic-of-concern is international.

After watching the entirety of the incredibly long PBS documentary "The Sixties," I was left with the feeling that many of civil disobedience campaigns in response to Vietnam did more harm than good to the anti-war and progressive cause, helping to usher in a era of conservatism that might not have been so strong had it not been for a popular reaction against the perceived extremism of the young protesters.

So I posed a series of questions to Tim, and he was gracious enough to respond. Namely, then, I asked, what is the ultimate aim of the campaign you are proposing? If it is to kick governments out of their apathy and motivate real policy moves towards ending the conflict, why do you think that this is the appropriate tactic to get us there? Or is it that we've reached a point where we have nothing left to lose?

Even if you disagree with Tim's approach, his idea provides an interesting starting point for a conversation about how the activist movement can be most effective under a new administration, and a new phase of the conflict in Darfur. I remain unconvinced, but interested in the conversation. (Also not a particular fan of toilet humor. See below.)

Without further ado, Tim's response:

1. What are the goals?

I have begun working with others to create a process for planning a coordinated NVCD campaign with specific goals. It will take time. So I cannot give you an answer today. But, in the US, such a plan must offer an answer to this question:

If we organized a national campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience, what action would we ask President Obama to take?

The action that we expect him to take must be clear, well-defined, decisive, specific and achievable. President Obama has used the word "genocide" many times to describe the situation in Darfur. But his actions, like those of so many world leaders, don't match his description of the crisis. There is a wide range of actions that President Obama and the international community could take to end the genocide, ranging from convening viable peace negotiations to military intervention.

Rather than focusing on a general goal, the Darfur movement needs to identify a decisive action that President Obama could immediately undertake that would set the US on the right course toward ending the genocide in Darfur. Once such an action is identified, activists will have a chance of successfully pressuring him to do so. If the action that we expect President Obama to take is too general, such as supporting peace negotiations, he will be able to claim that he is engaged in such a process even though little progress is being made. If the action is minor or symbolic, he may take action; but it will have little effect on the crisis. If the action is unrealistic, such as unilateral military intervention by the US, we are setting ourselves up to be disappointed.

2. How will it be effective?

Again, this must be worked out in the plan. If our identified goal is achievable through NVCD, it's then a matter of creating appropriate tactics to achieve that goal.

In a broader sense, nonviolence is a goal in itself. If I am interacting in a compassionate way with others, I am achieving my goal. It's within my power to do so; it doesn't depend on what others choose to do. If we understand compassion as a spiritual force at the heart of the Darfur movement, it's expression in various forms of activism is an act that is disconnected with ends. For instance, if I love someone, I shouldn't have to expect them to behave in a certain way to ensure that my loves endures for them. My love should not be a means to an end; it is the end itself. Through NVCD we model the way of life that we see as essential for the survival of humanity. Through NVCD, we are confronting the force of apathy with compassion seeking to transform the situation. Apathy is a powerful force; but compassion is more powerful.

3. Why is it needed?

I will answer this question along with the question, "Is it a last-ditch effort?", since they are closely interrelated. NVCD is a deeper expression of compassion as ethical action. By actively engaging the force of apathy, it exposes it to public view. Evil succeeds to the extent that it can hide itself. Pres. Bashir works very hard to hide the genocide in Darfur from the media and portray himself in the best possible light. We need to understand what apathy is and how it helps us cope with suffering in the world before we can offer compassion as an alternative.

Apathy means "without feeling." It isn't normal for people to lack feeling. Apathy, like compassion, is a practice that people adopt to shield themselves from the enormous level of suffering in the world. It's a coping mechanism. It isn't evil; it's an escape from evil based on fear. How can you blame people for being afraid in this crazy world? I feel as much compassion for them as I do for people in Darfur. Apathetic people are like refugees from love. If we assume that apathetic people have the capacity to be compassionate (which I believe), the question then becomes, how do we reach them? It really boils down to a choice between compassion and apathy.

NVCD may work if it helps people see the power of compassion. That's what happened in the South during the Civil Rights movement. Whites saw that NVCD was an expression of love, not hatred, and it compelled thousands of whites to join the movement. NVCD must increase the tension in people that results from their struggle to remain apathetic. If you see it as a practice, it's clear that it happens every day and requires a lot of energy. We don't need to change the whole society so that everyone is compassion to create change. But we need to find a way to get through to apathetic people who practice at being apathetic every day. They won't fall for the same old appeals they're used to hearing. It has to be creative and imaginative.

Humor is a good way to get people to see things differently because people love to laugh. For example (and please don't take this too seriously!), if dozens of people in hundreds of cities set up toilets in the center of their towns and cities and pretended to be using them, that would get people's attention. It's funny; and not something you expect to see. They are then open to the message: "Prseident Obama, s--- or get off the pot! Darfur can‘t wait!" It's an old saying you may not be familiar with. But the idea is for Pres. Obama to make up his mind and do something about Darfur. Can you imagine how hilarious it would be for police to arrest people in the middle of the "act"? This is just one idea.

4. How effective has it been in the past?

You can learn about the effectiveness of NVCD at this website:

http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/