Tuesday, October 05, 2010

From Dictatorship to Democracy - Chapter Three: Whence Comes Power?

KI Media is starting a series on From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp whereby a chapter from this book in both English and Khmer is published every 2-day interval, with prior submissions listed in the menu bar for easy recall. The emphasis is that of KI Media. For its original complete text go to:

This book has been translated into KHMER and its full version is available at:

Be inspired! Be coordinated! And take action!

KI Media
. . . . .

Click here to read the Khmer version of this chapter (PDF)

From Dictatorship to Democracy

Whence Comes Power?

Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course no simple task. It will require great strategic skill, organization, and planning. Above all, it will require power. Democrats cannot hope to bring down a dictatorship and establish political freedom without the ability to apply their own power effectively.

But how is this possible? What kind of power can the democratic opposition mobilize that will be sufficient to destroy the dictatorship and its vast military and police networks? The answers lie in an oft ignored understanding of political power. Learning this insight is not really so difficult a task. Some basic truths are quite simple.

The “Monkey Master” fable

A Fourteenth Century Chinese parable by Liu-Ji, for example, outlines this neglected understanding of political power quite well:(7)

In the feudal state of Chu an old man survived by keeping monkeys in his service. The people of Chu called him “ju gong” (monkey master).

Each morning, the old man would assemble the monkeys in his courtyard, and order the eldest one to lead the others to the mountains to gather fruits from bushes and trees. It was the rule that each monkey had to give one-tenth of his collection to the old man. Those who failed to do so would be ruthlessly flogged. All the monkeys suffered bitterly, but dared not complain.

One day, a small monkey asked the other monkeys: “Did the old man plant all the fruit trees and bushes?” The others said: “No, they grew naturally.” The small monkey further asked: “Can’t we take the fruits without the old man’s permission?” The others replied: “Yes, we all can.” The small monkey continued: “Then, why should we depend on the old man; why must we all serve him?”

Before the small monkey was able to finish his statement, all the monkeys suddenly became enlightened and awakened.

On the same night, watching that the old man had fallen asleep, the monkeys tore down all the barricades of the stockade in which they were confined, and destroyed the stockade entirely. They also took the fruits the old man had in storage, brought all with them to the woods, and never returned. The old man finally died of starvation.

Yu-li-zi says, “Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by righteous principles. Aren’t they just like the monkey master? They are not aware of their muddleheadedness. As soon as their people become enlightened, their tricks no longer work.”

Necessary sources of political power

The principle is simple. Dictators require the assistance of the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the sources of political power. These sources of political power include:

Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it;

Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the rulers;

Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups;

Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers;

Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation; and

Sanctions, punishments, threatened or applied, against the disobedient and non-cooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies.

All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the regime, on the submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of the society. These are not guaranteed.

Full cooperation, obedience, and support will increase the availability of the needed sources of power and, consequently, expand the power capacity of any government.

On the other hand, withdrawal of popular and institutional cooperation with aggressors and dictators diminishes, and may sever, the availability of the sources of power on which all rulers depend. Without availability of those sources, the rulers’ power weakens and finally dissolves.

Naturally, dictators are sensitive to actions and ideas that threaten their capacity to do as they like. Dictators are therefore likely to threaten and punish those who disobey, strike, or fail to cooperate. However, that is not the end of the story. Repression, even brutalities, do not always produce a resumption of the necessary degree of submission and cooperation for the regime to function. If, despite repression, the sources of power can be restricted or severed for enough time, the initial results may be uncertainty and confusion within the dictatorship. That is likely to be followed by a clear weakening of the power of the dictatorship. Over time, the withholding of the sources of power can produce the paralysis and impotence of the regime, and in severe cases, its disintegration. The dictators’ power will die, slowly or rapidly, from political starvation.

The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows, in large degree a reflection of the relative determination of the subjects to be free and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave them.

Contrary to popular opinion, even totalitarian dictatorships are dependent on the population and the societies they rule. As the political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953:

Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be used too often. If totalitarian power must be used at all times against the entire population, it is unlikely to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes require more power for dealing with their subjects than do other types of government, such regimes stand in greater need of widespread and dependable compliance habits among their people; more than that they have to be able to count on the active support of at least significant parts of the population in case of need.(8)

The English Nineteenth Century legal theorist John Austin described the situation of a dictatorship confronting a disaffected people. Austin argued that if most of the population were determined to destroy the government and were willing to endure repression to do so, then the might of the government, including those who supported it, could not preserve the hated government, even if it received foreign assistance. The defiant people could not be forced back into permanent obedience and subjection, Austin concluded.(9)

Niccolo Machiavelli had much earlier argued that the prince “. . . who has the public as a whole for his enemy can never make himself secure; and the greater his cruelty, the weaker does his regime become.”(10)

The practical political application of these insights was demonstrated by the heroic Norwegian resisters against the Nazi occupation, and as cited in Chapter One, by the brave Poles, Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, and many others who resisted Communist aggression and dictatorship, and finally helped produce the collapse of Communist rule in Europe. This, of course, is no new phenomenon: cases of nonviolent resistance go back at least to 494 B.C. when plebeians withdrew cooperation from their Roman patrician masters.(11) Nonviolent struggle has been employed at various times by peoples throughout Asia, Africa, the Americas, Australasia, and the Pacific islands, as well as Europe.

Three of the most important factors in determining to what degree a government’s power will be controlled or uncontrolled therefore are: (1) the relative desire of the populace to impose limits on the government’s power; (2) the relative strength of the subjects’ independent organizations and institutions to withdraw collectively the sources of power; and (3) the population’s relative ability to withhold their consent and assistance.

Centers of democratic power

One characteristic of a democratic society is that there exist independent of the state a multitude of nongovernmental groups and institutions. These include, for example, families, religious organizations, cultural associations, sports clubs, economic institutions, trade unions, student associations, political parties, villages, neighborhood associations, gardening clubs, human rights organizations, musical groups, literary societies, and others. These bodies are important in serving their own objectives and also in helping to meet social needs.

Additionally, these bodies have great political significance. They provide group and institutional bases by which people can exert influence over the direction of their society and resist other groups or the government when they are seen to impinge unjustly on their interests, activities, or purposes. Isolated individuals, not members of such groups, usually are unable to make a significant impact on the rest of the society, much less a government, and certainly not a dictatorship.

Consequently, if the autonomy and freedom of such bodies can be taken away by the dictators, the population will be relatively helpless. Also, if these institutions can themselves be dictatorially controlled by the central regime or replaced by new controlled ones, they can be used to dominate both the individual members and also those areas of the society.

However, if the autonomy and freedom of these independent civil institutions (outside of government control) can be maintained or regained they are highly important for the application of political defiance. The common feature of the cited examples in which dictatorships have been disintegrated or weakened has been the courageous mass application of political defiance by the population and its institutions.

As stated, these centers of power provide the institutional bases from which the population can exert pressure or can resist dictatorial controls. In the future, they will be part of the indispensable structural base for a free society. Their continued independence and growth therefore is often a prerequisite for the success of the liberation struggle.

If the dictatorship has been largely successful in destroying or controlling the society’s independent bodies, it will be important for the resisters to create new independent social groups and institutions, or to reassert democratic control over surviving or partially controlled bodies. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956-1957 a multitude of direct democracy councils emerged, even joining together to establish for some weeks a whole federated system of institutions and governance. In Poland during the late 1980s workers maintained illegal Solidarity unions and, in some cases, took over control of the official, Communist-dominated, trade unions. Such institutional developments can have very important political consequences.

Of course, none of this means that weakening and destroying dictatorships is easy, nor that every attempt will succeed. It certainly does not mean that the struggle will be free of casualties, for those still serving the dictators are likely to fight back in an effort to force the populace to resume cooperation and obedience.

The above insight into power does mean, however, that the deliberate disintegration of dictatorships is possible [author's emphasis]. Dictatorships in particular have specific characteristics that render them highly vulnerable to skillfully implemented political defiance. Let us examine these characteristics in more detail.
7 This story, originally titled “Rule by Tricks” is from Yu-li-zi by Liu Ji (1311-1375) and has been translated by Sidney Tai, all rights reserved. Yu-li-zi is also the pseudonym of Liu Ji. The translation was originally published in Nonviolent Sanctions: News from the Albert Einstein Institution (Cambridge, Mass.), Vol. IV, No. 3 (Winter 1992-1993), p. 3.
8 Karl W. Deutsch, “Cracks in the Monolith,” in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Totalitarianism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), pp. 313-314.
9 John Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of Positive Law (Fifth edition, revised and edited by Robert Campbell, 2 vol., London: John Murray, 1911 [1861]), Vol. I, p. 296.
10 Niccolo Machiavelli, “The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy,” in The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1950), Vol. I, p. 254.
11 See Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973), p. 75 and passim for other historical examples.


ជនពាល said...

តាមមើល៎ទៅ ពូកប្រឆាំងនិងរដ្ឋាភិបាលខ្មែរ កំពុងតែរៀនសូត្រព្រះគម្ពី Dictatorship to Democracy ។ ក្នុងគោលបំណង ស្វែងរកល្បិច ដើម្បីយកក្បួនទាំងនេះ ទៅប្រយុទ្ធតទាល់ជាមួយលោកហ៊ុនសែនទេតើ ។
តែទោះបីជាខំអាន ខំរៀន ខំបន់យ៉ាងណា ក៏វាគ្មានប្រសិទ្ធភាពជាដដែល ព្រោះថាវាដើរមិន
ទាន់ គោលនយោបាយឈ្នះៗ របស់សម្ដេចតេជោហ៊ុនសែនឡើយ ។
អ្វីដែលគួរអោយអស្ចារ្យនោះ គឺសូមក្រឡេកមើលមើ! លោកហ៊ុនសែនកាលពីក្មេង លោកមិនស៊ូវ
បានរៀនសូត្រធំដុំដូចនិងគេឡើយ តែនៅទីក្រុងBruxellesថ្ងៃនេះ លោកនាយក រដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន គឺគាត់បានដើរតួធ្វើជាអ្នកសម្របសម្រួលតំណាងខាងASEAN ទាំងមូល ។
មេច!!! ច្រណែនទេ ?
ដុន ហ្វ័រ ហ្កេត ! លោកហ៊ុនសែន ហ៊ី ហ្កេន ណត អ៊ី វឹន ស្ពីក អ៊ីង គ្លីស !
ហ៊ី យូស ធូ ស្ពីក ខ្មែរ លែងហ្វីក អ៊ីវ្រីវែរ ។

ជនពាល said...

តាមមើល៎ទៅ ពូកប្រឆាំងនិងរដ្ឋាភិបាលខ្មែរ កំពុងតែរៀនសូត្រព្រះគម្ពី Dictatorship to Democracy ។ ក្នុងគោលបំណង ស្វែងរកល្បិច ដើម្បីយកក្បួនទាំងនេះ ទៅប្រយុទ្ធតទាល់ជាមួយលោកហ៊ុនសែនទេតើ ។
តែទោះបីជាខំអាន ខំរៀន ខំបន់យ៉ាងណា ក៏វាគ្មានប្រសិទ្ធភាពជាដដែល ព្រោះថាវាដើរមិន
ទាន់ គោលនយោបាយឈ្នះៗ របស់សម្ដេចតេជោហ៊ុនសែនឡើយ ។
អ្វីដែលគួរអោយអស្ចារ្យនោះ គឺសូមក្រឡេកមើលមើ! លោកហ៊ុនសែនកាលពីក្មេង លោកមិនស៊ូវ
បានរៀនសូត្រធំដុំដូចនិងគេឡើយ តែនៅទីក្រុងBruxellesថ្ងៃនេះ លោកនាយក រដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន គឺគាត់បានដើរតួធ្វើជាអ្នកសម្របសម្រួលតំណាងខាងASEAN ទាំងមូល ។
មេច!!! ច្រណែនទេ ?
ដុន ហ្វ័រ ហ្កេត ! លោកហ៊ុនសែន ហ៊ី ហ្កេន ណត អ៊ី វឹន ស្ពីក អ៊ីង គ្លីស !
ហ៊ី យូស ធូ ស្ពីក ខ្មែរ លែងហ្វីក អ៊ីវ្រីវែរ ។

Anonymous said...

LOL @ 11:39, "Vietnamization", you called yourself????

Anonymous said...

If Hun Sen is such a "strongman" why the repression and restriction of freedoms?????? It's called FEAR OF SAM RAINSY and the power of the people!!!!!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Hey you fucking Vietnamization, Viet slave @11:39AM,

If you want to be Viet's slave for life, go ahead - it is your right, your freedom of choice, but do not drag the Cambodian people along with you or you will be eliminated from the face of this green planet earth. This is not a warning nor is it a threat but rather a promise to you!

[Connard, l’esclave des Viêts (Vietnamisation) à 11:39 AM,
Si tu veux être l'esclave des Viêts à vie, vas-y: c'est ton droit, ta liberté de choix, mais ne pas essayer de prendre le peuple cambodgien libre avec toi ou tu seras éliminé de cette verte planète. Ce n'est pas un avertissement ni une menace mais plutôt une promesse sûre!]

ហេ អា/មី ងាប់ផុតពូជខ្ញុំកញ្ជះយួន (វៀតណាមូនីយកម្ម?) ១១:៣៩AM
បើ អា/មី ងាប់ផុតពូជឯងចង់ធ្វើខ្ញុំកញ្ជះយួនអស់
មួយជីវិតនោះ ក៏ធ្វើទៅ តែកុំមកបញ្ចុះបញ្ចូលនាំខ្មែរ
អ្នកជា ផ្សេងៗទៀតទៅជាមួយអា/មី ងាប់ផុតពូជ
ឯងអោយសោះ ពុំនោះសោតទេ អា/មី ងាប់ផុត
បន្លាចនោះទេ តែវាជាពាក្យ សន្យាដ៏ពិតប្រាកដតែ


Anonymous said...

Svar see prahok kim oy,when i read and see your face on the pics, if i see you anywhere, ikill you quickly.
Traitor was born in YUon cut Khmer soil to VIet. All khmer kill him, when him in anywhere.