Gene Sharp: A dictator's worst nightmare

At 84, American political scientist Gene Sharp has seen his lifelong work on nonviolent resistance echo around the world.

Sun June 24, 2012
By Mairi Mackay, CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Political scientist Gene Sharp has been called the father of nonviolent struggle
• Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, "From Dictatorship to Democracy"
• Sharp says no regime can survive without the support of its people
• Arab Spring put a new spotlight on Sharp's work

London (CNN) -- It's a dark January evening, and in an anonymous townhouse near Paddington station, a man is talking about how to stage a revolution.

A young Iranian asks a question: "The youth in Iran are very disillusioned by the brutality of the violence used against them ... It has stopped all the street protest," she says. "What would you say to them? How can they get themselves organized again?"

The man thinks for a moment. He's an unlikely looking radical -- slightly stooped with white hair, his bent frame engulfed by the low chair he's sitting in.

When he opens his mouth to speak, all eyes in the room are fastened on him.

"You don't march down the street towards soldiers with machine guns. ... That's not a wise thing to do.

"But there are other things that are much more extreme. ... You could have everybody stay at home.

"Total silence of the city," he says lowering his voice to a whisper, punctuating the words with his bent hands, as if he's wiping out the noise himself.

"Everybody at home." The man's eyes scan the room. "Silence," he whispers again.

"You think the regime will notice?"

From Dictatorship to Democracy - APPENDIX ONE: The Methods of Nonviolent Action

KI Media’s 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 chapters listed in the menu bar for easy recall.  The emphasis is that of KI Media.  For its original complete text go to:

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf

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

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD-Khmer.pdf

Be inspired!  Be coordinated!  And take action!

-  KI Media

. . . . .

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

From Dictatorship to Democracy

APPENDIX ONE

The Methods of Nonviolent Action

The Methods of Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion

Formal statements

1. Public speeches

2. Letters of opposition or support

3. Declarations by organizations and institutions

4. Signed public statements

5. Declarations of indictment and intention

6. Group or mass petitions

Communications with a wider audience

7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols

8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications

9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books

10. Newspapers and journals

11. Records, radio, and television

12. Skywriting and earthwriting

CAMBODIA: "Knock, Knock -- Anybody Inside?"

FOR PUBLICATION
AHRC-ETC-039-2010
November 15, 2010

An article by Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth published by the Asian Human Rights Commission

As a student of politics, I understand the usefulness of letter writing, petitioning, appealing to foreign leaders for help. I myself have used these tools. But not today, I have stood as only an observer of Khmer democrats who write, petition, appeal to outside agents to intervene as "elected" dictator Hun Sen, and his ruling Cambodian People's Party, trample the 19 year old Paris Peace Accords, the country's Constitution, democracy, human rights, the rule of law.

As one feels feeble and unable to throw off the yoke of a dictatorship on one's own, one tends to look to others for help. But, are Khmer democrats and rights activists truly weak and incapable, or do their entreaties to foreign governments and international agencies confirm what a Western writer dubbed the "Cambodian dependency syndrome"?

Lessons I learned

I left the Khmer national resistance 21 years ago this month, after nine years of struggle for rights and freedom. I spent nearly a decade working with Khmer nationalists to establish a government for the country of my birth that would serve its citizens well and respect their civil rights; rights about which I learned in high school, college, and graduate school. My belief in the inherent right of individuals to these freedoms has not waned, but I learned in the course of my activism that no outside influence can deliver to oppressed Khmers the rights and the freedom they so badly want; and that an outside force considers helping only if it sees potential in the Khmers and an ability to provide a honorable and credible alternative to the tyranny they oppose.

I left the field in November 1989. At the Khmer-Thai border, the language of transforming the battlefield into a market place, and transforming bullets into ballots, was in vogue; national reconciliation was hopefully anticipated. I had no doubt in my mind that the world was in the process of changing. Some of the old guard were nervous about their roles in the change all could sense was coming; noncommunist resistance officials were busy seeking alignment and realignment for future political position. Lord Buddha taught: "Everything changes, nothing remains without change."

Fast forward: From the island of Guam where I began a university career teaching politics, I told a reporter from Bangkok's English daily, The Nation, in an interview, to beware of a coup d'etat, and I wrote in the Far Eastern Economic Review warning that temporary "political calm" was likely the precedent to a new storm.

October 2010: A busy month

October was a busy month for Khmers who oppose Premier Hun Sen's dictatorship.

Mental health professionals might define Sen's behaviors as those of a "baby king" who wants what he wants when he wants it. Sen is a Khmer Leviathan with absolute powers. America's great founding father, James Madison, called such a man "a tyrant." Recently, Professor Joel Brinkley dubbed Sen "a living definition of the word 'impunity'."

This Leviathan has destroyed the democracy and civil rights that the Paris Peace Accords ending the long civil conflict intended for Cambodia’s citizens. Cambodians and foreign donors of aid are not ignorant of Sen's oppressive rule. As I have observed many times, the more we write and discuss about Premier Sen's government's policies that have brought suffering to increasing numbers of Khmer citizens, the homeless, landless, farmless and victimized by gross abuses of civil rights and about how the world knows what goes on in Sen's Cambodia, the more things in Cambodia remain the same.

I wrote in this space that Khmer democracy and rights activists must realize they are on their own in their fight for rights and freedom in this dog-eat-dog world.

Appeals to idealism, humanity and compassion can evoke emotion and sentiment, but dictatorships don't crumble this way. In the world of competitive national interests, no foreign power would risk its relationships with a ruling dictator in favor of fractious democracy and rights groups that cannot even agree on a common platform for the same goal.

The 19th Anniversary of the Signing of the Paris Peace Accords

The Oct. 23, 1991 Final Act of the Paris Accords to restore peace to Cambodia was adopted by 18 participating governments, including the four warring Cambodian factions, and representatives of the non-aligned movement and the United Nations Secretary General and his special representative. The Accords outlined for Cambodia "a system of liberal democracy" with an independent judiciary and described what human rights and fundamental freedoms entailed. The agreements stipulated the signatories' agreement to maintain, preserve, and defend Cambodia's sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity.

They would have been the best instrument and hope for Cambodia if only they had been implemented.

The necessary neutral political environment and the strict neutrality of Cambodia's administrative agencies were never implemented; the U.N. Transitional Authority was ineffective; Hun Sen, supported by Vietnam, but loser of the first U.N. organized general elections in 1993, threatened a civil war; Cambodia's last god-king, Prince Sihanouk, sacrificed his own son, Prince Ranariddh, winner of the elections, when he devised an unworkable "two-head" formula, making Sen, the loser, prime minister next to Ranarridh, dividing Cambodia. Two leaders and two cohorts running the same government was a prescription for failure.

In 1997, Sen launched a military coup against Ranariddh, as the world watched the birth of a ruthless Khmer Leviathan.

On the occasion of the 19th anniversary of the signing of the Accords, Cambodian democracy and rights activists called for the reactivation of the Accords and the abrogation of border treaties signed with Vietnam by the Hanoi-installed Sen regime. But wasn't it the regime's elected parliament and Cambodia's king who legitimized the treaties and their supplements to benefit Vietnam?

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Visit

The Khmer dictator invited the U.N. Secretary General to Cambodia. He visited the country on Oct. 26-28. On the day Ban Ki-moon arrived in Cambodia, the Cambodian Center for Human Rights welcomed and encouraged Ban "to use your visit to publicly address pressing human rights in Cambodia."

Yet, right in front of a hospital Ban was visiting, 23-year-old Suong Sophorn of a housing rights group lay in blood-stained clothes, beaten unconscious by Sen's security forces in United States military helmets, an example of U.S. aid because he led about 30 Boeng Kak residents, representing those facing eviction from their homes, towards Ban's motorcade to hand him a petition.

The best defense is an offense. When Ban was meeting with Sen, the Khmer Leviathan surprised Ban: The U. N. human rights office in Phnom Penh would have to close down if its representative, Christophe Peschoux, accused of acting as a spokesman for the opposition, was not replaced. In addition, Sen said the U.N. sponsored Khmer Rouge Tribunal cannot seek more indictments beyond the four top Khmer Rouge leaders in Trial 2; no Trial 3, as it would bring a civil war!

Although only Sen's security forces and the military have guns, is Sen worried that he, himself a former Khmer Rouge regional commander, and his Khmer Rouge comrades now in the government, may be implicated in the killing fields?

The tribunal hearing charges against former Khmer Rouge leaders already is a laughing stock. Despite the time and enormous international resources devoted to the tribunal, it has found guilty only one lower level Khmer Rouge executioner, Duch, for the death of up to 2 million people.

Ban, who left Phnom Penh on Oct. 28 for Hanoi, before heading to Beijing, was given bitter pills by Sen. But, what have the Khmer activists learned?

Bludgeoned protester Suong Sophorn never made it to Ban's motorcade. But Sophorn focused the eyes of the world on the brutalities of Sen's forces. Khmer Web sites, newspapers, Khmer radio broadcasts, are excellent vehicles to educate, to awaken the conscience of Khmer officers and soldiers, and Khmer functionaries, to behave less harshly when directed to mistreat Khmer citizens by Sen and his CPP.

Sophorn is very unlike opposition leader Sam Rainsy, whom former Senator Ung Bun Ang of the Sam Rainsy Party dubbed a hero "for at least five seconds," for declaring from exile in Paris after he fled Sen's arrest in Phnom Penh, "I am willing to die so that the country can live." Sophorn lay in his blood on a failed mission. Had opposition party members come out to pick up Sophorn from the ground, what image that would have projected!

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Visit

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's turn came on Oct. 30-Nov. 1. Again, the CCHR welcomed and urged her "to show leadership by encouraging Cambodia to reverse the drift towards authoritarianism."

Radio Free Asia reported that six members of two opposition parties met Clinton on Nov. 1 at the U.S. ambassador's residence. They asked Clinton to intervene with Sen to allow Sam Rainsy, sentenced to prison for a total of 12 years, to return to Cambodia without fear of imprisonment! A top diplomat, Clinton said that she would follow closely the situation in Cambodia and would look into Rainsy's case. But RFA also reported the Sen regime's response: The U.S. "has absolutely no power to interfere in Cambodia's internal affairs."

Recall, in July 2009 Secretary Clinton signed, under President Obama's executive authority, the Association of South-East Asian Nations' 1976 Bali Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, the core of which supports noninterference in member states internal affairs.

Truly intriguing was what opposition members at the meeting found to be revelatory: They reported that Secretary Clinton said that in order to "......beat the ruling party, the opposition parties should unite". Clinton allegedly said she could not understand "why both parties (the Sam Rainsy Party and the Human Rights Party) cannot unite." Nay, said one democrat, Clinton meant a political merger and that the Secretary "encouraged opposition parties to form a comprehensive political platform with which to compete against the ruling party."

Son Soubert of the Khmer People's National Liberation Front, e-mailed front cadres that Clinton encouraged the unity of Khmer democrats and urged Khmers not to focus on one particular leader but on a common political platform.

Were these new thoughts, or were the thoughts important because they came from Secretary Clinton?

At the end of her visit, Secretary Clinton told a press conference held with Sen's deputy premier Hor Namhong that she was very optimistic about Cambodia's future. "The last years have been transformative for this country. And I hope that the United States can be a good partner and a friend, as the Government and the people of Cambodia make the necessary steps to improve your democratic institutions, to improve the economy, to provide the kind of opportunities that the young people I met with earlier today deserve to have," said Clinton.

She concluded: "This visit has left me encouraged that our partnership can deepen and grow to serve both our peoples in the years to come."

As the Obama administration sees Asia as key to the future and seeks to balance China's influence in the region, on Nov 1 Secretary Clinton told students at a meeting: "You don't want to get too dependent on any country, don't rely too much on China!"

So, when Sen's deputy Namhong said that putting lower-ranking Khmer Rouge officials on trial in Trial 3, could jeopardize peace and stability, the Secretary said her priority is to raise million to prosecute Nuon Chea, Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary, and Khieu Samphan in Khmer Rouge Tribunal's Trial 2!

America’s secretary of state has spoken. What did Cambodian democrats and right activists hear?

Full Circle

This brings me back to my conviction that Cambodian democrats and rights activists cannot depend on outside agents to win for the oppressed Cambodians their rights and their freedom. The responsibility of Cambodia’s democrats is to popularize the idea that Cambodians themselves must fight for their rights and their freedom through a disciplined and unwavering struggle, accept to endure continued repression and suffering, as housing right activist Sophorn did, in order to highlight the current brutalities. Democrats must come up with an intelligent common strategic plan for liberation. The Albert Einstein Institution, dedicated to the defense of freedom, posits, you don't have to have a charismatic leader to fight dictatorship.

You must have better thinking!

……………..

The views shared in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the AHRC, and the AHRC takes no responsibility for them.

About the Author:

Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. He currently lives in the United States. He can be contacted at peangmeth@gmail.com.

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Our children profit from our actions

The monkey eats the rice, then smears rice on the goat's mouth (A 2003 Cartoon by Sacrava)

November 3, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS (Guam)

"People power" is not beyond reach in Cambodia. Skeptics misunderstand people power and equate it with bloody rebellion. Khmers are Buddhists -- gentle and placid, who don't rise against a ruthless dictatorship.

The Albert Einstein Institution, committed to the defense of freedom, says: "Nonviolent action (also sometimes referred to as people power, political defiance and nonviolent struggle) is a technique of action for applying power in a conflict by using symbolic protests, noncooperation and defiance, but not physical violence."

My nine years (1980-1989) in the Khmer resistance against Vietnam's military invasion and occupation took me near death's door many times, but I never believed we could defeat the Hanoi armies that brought the Americans to a negotiations table earlier. But we did believe that an effective Khmer resistance would bring Hanoi to the negotiations table. That, in fact, happened.

Except, the Khmer nationalists never prepared themselves for post-1991 Paris Peace Accords.

Adding to the detrimental lack of careful strategic planning with necessary "next steps," they were trapped in denial, blaming, as many simply realigned themselves for political positions.

The game of "svar pa'at bai loeu mo'at po-pe" (monkey smears rice on a goat's mouth) continued until today: The monkey ate the farmer's rice and smeared rice on a goat's mouth so the goat would be blamed for eating the rice; the farmer didn't know better and took out his anger on the goat, forgetting that goats don't eat rice.

Population has power

I stood before my introduction to political science classes for 13 years, driving home the same point every semester, that a government's "right to rule" is based on the people putting it in power.

In a democracy, an election is free, fair and secret. Having given the government the right to rule, the people feel morally responsible to respect it, obey its laws and commands and, as such, they bestow upon it its legitimacy.

Dr. Gene Sharp writes in "From Dictatorship to Democracy," that "Dictators are not in the business of allowing elections that could remove them from their thrones."

Culture, belief

Culture and belief do matter.

A culture that emphasizes obedience, loyalty and order produces citizens different from a culture that promotes creativity, independence and self-respect.

Thus lambs and lions emerge.

The lambs don't disturb the status quo -- societal norms demand resolute obedience and unquestioned loyalty. The lions use creative ways to be independent and free.

President Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg address declared that America's representative democracy, a "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

A government of the people is one that comes from the people themselves, not from the ruling class; officials come from the citizenry. A government of the people that comes from the people operates for the good of the people, not for the good of the ruling class.

A government by the people is one in which the people are the ultimate decision-makers. They send representatives to make their wishes known in decision-making. But representatives can't change the U.S. Constitution, only "we, the people" can.

A government for the people is one that does things for the good of the people; the only purpose of government is to make their lives better. The world's peoples want basically the same thing: Food, clothes, a roof, security, decent health, a level of contentment, an ability to meet their basic needs -- in peace and security.

Dictatorships

Ironically, the population and the society are two necessary sources of dictators' political power. A democracy uses its political structure -- the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches, with power to regulate, extract and distribute -- to ensure the people's well-being.

A dictatorship uses its political structure, with the same regulatory, extractive and distributive power, to ensure the people's obedience, submission and cooperation, so dictators can stay in power.

With a culture of self-evident truths, the people fight when their equality and rights are compromised. But, in a culture that espouses leader-follower, superior-inferior, patron-client, master-servant relationships, the people obey, submit and cooperate.

Deny power sources

Dictators' feet are not made of immovable clay. Dictators don't stay powerful always. Likewise, democracy and rights fighters don't have to remain weak forever.

Sharp reasons: If dictators stay in power because they succeed in extracting the people's obedience, submission and cooperation, by denying the dictators their sources of power, they become powerless.

Dictators control state institutions. But institutions are made up of people who steer them. People of high principles and beliefs would find ways to steer the institutions -- including the feared courts and security police -- away from tyranny.

Sure, people are strongly politically and socially conditioned to obey and submit. But why can what is conditioned not be unconditioned? Is there anything unchangeable?

I wrote before that my refusal to submit to blind obedience landed me in hot political waters. So? A saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I don't pretend to have answers to everything; I don't. But people can learn what benefits all; unlearn what's detrimental. We know what those things are. Start, we must. The time to start was yesterday. Cry not for missed opportunities. We won't see the benefit of our actions. Our children and their children will!

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

From Dictatorship to Democracy - Chapter Ten: Groundwork for Durable Democracy

KI Media's 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:

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf

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

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD-Khmer.pdf

Be inspired! Be coordinated! And take action!

KI Media
. . . . .

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

From Dictatorship to Democracy

CHAPTER TEN

Groundwork for Durable Democracy

The disintegration of the dictatorship is of course a cause for major celebration. People who have suffered for so long and struggled at great price merit a time of joy, relaxation, and recognition. They should feel proud of themselves and of all who struggled with them to win political freedom. Not all will have lived to see this day. The living and the dead will be remembered as heroes who helped to shape the history of freedom in their country.

Unfortunately, this is not a time for a reduction in vigilance. Even in the event of a successful disintegration of the dictatorship by political defiance, careful precautions must be taken to prevent the rise of a new oppressive regime out of the confusion following the collapse of the old one. The leaders of the pro-democracy forces should have prepared in advance for an orderly transition to a democracy. The dictatorial structures will need to be dismantled. The constitutional and legal bases and standards of behavior of a durable democracy will need to be built.

No one should believe that with the downfall of the dictatorship an ideal society will immediately appear. The disintegration of the dictatorship simply provides the beginning point, under conditions of enhanced freedom, for long-term efforts to improve the society and meet human needs more adequately. Serious political, economic, and social problems will continue for years, requiring the cooperation of many people and groups in seeking their resolution. The new political system should provide the opportunities for people with varying outlooks and favored measures to continue constructive work and policy development to deal with problems in the future.

Threats of a new dictatorship

Aristotle warned long ago that “...tyranny can also change into tyranny...”14 [True! from the tyranny of the Khmer Rouge to the tyranny of the CPP] There is ample historical evidence from France (the Jacobins and Napoleon), Russia (the Bolsheviks), Iran (the Ayatollah), Burma (SLORC), and elsewhere that the collapse of an oppressive regime will be seen by some persons and groups as merely the opportunity for them to step in as the new masters. Their motives may vary, but the results are often approximately the same. The new dictatorship may even be more cruel and total in its control than the old one.

Even before the collapse of the dictatorship, members of the old regime may attempt to cut short the defiance struggle for democracy by staging a coup d’état designed to preempt victory by the popular resistance. It may claim to oust the dictatorship [How true of Hun Sen, Chea Sim, Heng Samrin when they defected from the Khmer Rouge into the arms of Vietnam to be used by the enemy to claim liberation!], but in fact seek only to impose a new refurbished model of the old one.

Blocking coups

There are ways in which coups against newly liberated societies can be defeated. Advance knowledge of that defense capacity may at times be sufficient to deter the attempt. Preparation can produce prevention.

Immediately after a coup is started, the putschists require legitimacy, that is, acceptance of their moral and political right to rule. The first basic principle of anti-coup defense is therefore to deny legitimacy to the putschists.

The putschists also require that the civilian leaders and population be supportive, confused, or just passive. The putschists require the cooperation of specialists and advisors, bureaucrats and civil servants, administrators and judges in order to consolidate their control over the affected society. The putschists also require that the multitude of people who operate the political system, the society’s institutions, the economy, the police, and the military forces will passively submit and carry out their usual functions as modified by the putschists’ orders and policies.

The second basic principle of anti-coup defense is to resist the putschists with noncooperation and defiance. The needed cooperation and assistance must be denied. Essentially the same means of struggle that was used against the dictatorship can be used against the new threat, but applied immediately. If both legitimacy and cooperation are denied, the coup may die of political starvation and the chance to build a democratic society restored.

Constitution drafting

The new democratic system will require a constitution that establishes the desired framework of the democratic government. The constitution should set the purposes of government, limits on governmental powers, the means and timing of elections by which governmental officials and legislators will be chosen, the inherent rights of the people, and the relation of the national government to other lower levels of government.

Within the central government, if it is to remain democratic, a clear division of authority should be established between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Strong restrictions should be included on activities of the police, intelligence services, and military forces to prohibit any legal political interference.

In the interests of preserving the democratic system and impeding dictatorial trends and measures, the constitution should preferably be one that establishes a federal system with significant prerogatives reserved for the regional, state, and local levels of government. In some situations the Swiss system of cantons might be considered in which relatively small areas retain major prerogatives, while remaining a part of the whole country.

If a constitution with many of these features existed earlier in the newly liberated country’s history, it may be wise simply to restore it to operation [Cambodia has a good constitution], amending it as deemed necessary and desirable. If a suitable older constitution is not present, it may be necessary to operate with an interim constitution. Otherwise, a new constitution will need to be prepared. Preparing a new constitution will take considerable time and thought. Popular participation in this process is desirable and required for ratification of a new text or amendments. One should be very cautious about including in the constitution promises that later might prove impossible to implement or provisions that would require a highly centralized government, for both can facilitate a new dictatorship.

The wording of the constitution should be easily understood by the majority of the population. A constitution should not be so complex or ambiguous that only lawyers or other elites can claim to understand it.

A democratic defense policy

The liberated country may also face foreign threats [VIETNAM!] for which a defense capacity would be required. The country might also be threatened by foreign attempts to establish economic, political, or military domination.

In the interests of maintaining internal democracy, serious consideration should be given to applying the basic principles of political defiance to the needs of national defense.15 By placing resistance capacity directly in the hands of the citizenry, newly liberated countries could avoid the need to establish a strong military capacity which could itself threaten democracy or require vast economic resources much needed for other purposes.

It must be remembered that some groups will ignore any constitutional provision in their aim to establish themselves as new dictators. Therefore, a permanent role will exist for the population to apply political defiance and noncooperation against would-be dictators and to preserve democratic structures, rights, and procedures.

A meritorious responsibility

The effect of nonviolent struggle is not only to weaken and remove the dictators but also to empower the oppressed. This technique enables people who formerly felt themselves to be only pawns or victims to wield power directly in order to gain by their own efforts greater freedom and justice. This experience of struggle has important psychological consequences, contributing to increased self-esteem and self-confidence among the formerly powerless.

One important long-term beneficial consequence of the use of nonviolent struggle for establishing democratic government is that the society will be more capable of dealing with continuing and future problems. These might include future governmental abuse and corruption, maltreatment of any group, economic injustices, and limitations on the democratic qualities of the political system. The population experienced in the use of political defiance is less likely to be vulnerable to future dictatorships.

After liberation, familiarity with nonviolent struggle will provide ways to defend democracy, civil liberties, minority rights, and prerogatives of regional, state, and local governments and nongovernmental institutions. Such means also provide ways by which people and groups can express extreme dissent peacefully on issues seen as so important that opposition groups have sometimes resorted to terrorism or guerrilla warfare.

The thoughts in this examination of political defiance or nonviolent struggle are intended to be helpful to all persons and groups who seek to lift dictatorial oppression from their people and to establish a durable democratic system that respects human freedoms and popular action to improve the society.

There are three major conclusions to the ideas sketched here:

• Liberation from dictatorships is possible;
• Very careful thought and strategic planning will be required to achieve it; and
• Vigilance, hard work, and disciplined struggle, often at great cost, will be needed.

The oft quoted phrase “Freedom is not free” is true. No outside force is coming to give oppressed people the freedom they so much want. People will have to learn how to take that freedom themselves. Easy it cannot be.

If people can grasp what is required for their own liberation, they can chart courses of action which, through much travail, can eventually bring them their freedom. Then, with diligence they can construct a new democratic order and prepare for its defense. Freedom won by struggle of this type can be durable. It can be maintained by a tenacious people committed to its preservation and enrichment.

_________________________________________

14 Aristotle, The Politics, Book V, Chapter 12, p. 233.

15 See Gene Sharp, Civilian-Based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990).

Dictatorships can be disintegrated

October 27, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS

I like the national capital's Korean War memorial that honors America's "sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met." Life-size sculptures of American soldiers, with World War II helmets and winter ponchos, carry rifles and equipment of the "old" U.S. Army, their postures and faces expressive of the danger all around them, a platoon fixed in time on a plot of grass on the National Mall.

Freedom isn't free

(Photo: Dr. A. Gaffar Peang-Meth)

With my old Pentax -- state of the art at the time -- I clicked photos of the sculptures and the adjacent pool that reflected the Stars and Stripes and visitors of different races ... until I reached a wall of lovely marble with four chiseled words: "Freedom is not free." I stopped, photographed the words, sat, looked and photographed again.

A mix of emotion rushed through me --sad and happy, anxious.

I was sad to think of the suffering and the sacrifices of men and women in the name of the nation's "call" and in the name of "freedom," which so many take for granted these days. I was happy that freedom prevailed on many lands; that dictatorships have succumbed, though they are never entirely defeated.

And I am anxious about the future of my children's children.

Long ago, while I was in college, it was that same word, "freedom," and its associates, "individual rights" and "independence," among others, that led me to the study of political science. Later, in graduate school, I made my choice and entered into political actions for the same words.

When the situation in Southeast Asia changed, I put what I learned and believed in into practice: I joined Khmer nationalists in the field from 1980-1989.

However much the explosive sounds of combat frightened me, I lived through them.

To do it again

Some say, "Talk is cheap!" You talk and I talk. We all talk. Yet talk that's influenced by high principles and beliefs and followed by action distinguishes one talker from another.

Once with the Khmer national resistance, I sought opportunities to "see a lot, hear a lot, and talk a little" -- a dictum taught to resistance cadres. At the risk of upsetting some in the power hierarchy, I traveled, at times alone, to visit different bases, some in faraway places, and stay with men in forward positions, sharing their food and experiences. As I saw a lot and heard a lot, I began to suggest and began to sense trouble: To be jealous is human!

There was no major enemy military offensive against resistance bases during which I did not find myself in the field, or in a bunker with my commander-in-chief, or in the trenches with the fighters -- a story for another day.

From time to time, I accompanied my president on official visits to some capitals of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. I remember withdrawing myself quietly from the dining table one time, returning to musicians who performed the song by Abba, "Fernando." In the circumstances, the words were evocative, describing the sounds and anxiety of another war at another time and place.

I didn't know how much everyone at the table understood the song, but politely they listened: "I was so afraid. ... We were so young and full of life and none of us prepared to die." I stole looks at the faces around the table: "And I'm not ashamed to say the roar of guns and cannons almost made me cry." My boss glanced at me. "There was something in the air that night, the stars were bright, ... they were shining there for you and me, for liberty, ..."

"Though we never thought that we could lose, there's no regret," went the song, "If I had to do the same again I would, my friend, Fernando."

Upon returning to our rear base, the president wanted the words of the song; my wife transcribed them for him.

That was yesterday.

Fighting dictatorships

Today, I find myself fighting still. I am no longer "so young and full of life" as the song says, but my mind is sound and my pen is my weapon, my tool.

Recently, my brother-in-law gave us some old photos. One was of our first son riding a toy horse in our university apartment in Ann Arbor. On the wall was a poster of the time: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." It marked my spirit then, and still does. So, I advocate fighting authoritarianism, and posit that authoritarianism can be brought down by better thinking.

Emeritus political science professor Gene Sharp's writings represent such better thinking: Dictatorships can be disintegrated through nonviolent action, which is also called people power or political defiance. Sharp, who presented us with nearly 200 methods of nonviolent actions, gave us a conceptual framework to liberate from dictatorships.

"The oft quoted phrase 'Freedom is not free' is true," Sharp wrote. "No outside force is coming to give oppressed people the freedom they so much want. People will have to learn how to take that freedom themselves. Easy it cannot be."

And that's where Cambodian democrats and rights fighters must realize: Unless they become a credible internal force resisting dictators, foreign intervention on Cambodians' behalf should not be expected.

Still, as Sharp says, it is possible to disintegrate dictatorships!

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

From Dictatorship to Democracy - Chapter Nine: Disintegrating the Political Dictatorship

KI Media's 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:

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf

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

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD-Khmer.pdf

Be inspired! Be coordinated! And take action!

KI Media
. . . . .

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

From Dictatorship to Democracy

CHAPTER NINE

Disintegrating the Political Dictatorship

The cumulative effect of well-conducted and successful political defiance campaigns is to strengthen the resistance and to establish and expand areas of the society where the dictatorship faces limits on its effective control. These campaigns also provide important experience in how to refuse cooperation and how to offer political defiance. That experience will be of great assistance when the time comes for noncooperation and defiance on a mass scale.

As was discussed in Chapter Three, obedience, cooperation, and submission are essential if dictators are to be powerful. Without access to the sources of political power, the dictators’ power weakens and finally dissolves. Withdrawal of support is therefore the major required action to disintegrate a dictatorship. It may be useful to review how the sources of power can be affected by political defiance.

Acts of symbolic repudiation and defiance are among the available means to undermine the regime’s moral and political authority — its legitimacy. The greater the regime’s authority, the greater and more reliable is the obedience and cooperation which it will receive. Moral disapproval needs to be expressed in action in order to seriously threaten the existence of the dictatorship. Withdrawal of cooperation and obedience are needed to sever the availability of other sources of the regime’s power.

A second important such source of power is human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups that obey, cooperate with, or assist the rulers. If noncooperation is practiced by large parts of the population, the regime will be in serious trouble. For example, if the civil servants no longer function with their normal efficiency or even stay at home, the administrative apparatus will be gravely affected.

Similarly, if the noncooperating persons and groups include those that have previously supplied specialized skills and knowledge [author's emphasis], then the dictators will see their capacity to implement their will gravely weakened. Even their ability to make well-informed decisions and develop effective policies may be seriously reduced.

If psychological and ideological influences — called intangible factors — that usually induce people to obey and assist the rulers are weakened or reversed, the population will be more inclined to disobey and to noncooperate. The dictators’ access to material resources also directly affects their power. With control of financial resources, the economic system, property, natural resources, transportation, and means of communication in the hands of actual or potential opponents of the regime, another major source of their power is vulnerable or removed. Strikes, boycotts, and increasing autonomy in the economy, communications, and transportation will weaken the regime.

As previously discussed, the dictators’ ability to threaten or apply sanctions — punishments against the restive, disobedient, and noncooperative sections of the population — is a central source of the power of dictators. This source of power can be weakened in two ways. First, if the population is prepared, as in a war, to risk serious consequences as the price of defiance, the effectiveness of the available sanctions will be drastically reduced (that is, the dictators’ repression will not secure the desired submission). Second, if the police and the military forces themselves become disaffected, they may on an individual or mass basis evade or outright defy orders to arrest, beat, or shoot resisters. If the dictators can no longer rely on the police and military forces to carry out repression, the dictatorship is gravely threatened.

In summary, success against an entrenched dictatorship requires that noncooperation and defiance reduce and remove the sources of the regime’s power. Without constant replenishment of the necessary sources of power the dictatorship will weaken and finally disintegrate. Competent strategic planning of political defiance against dictatorships therefore needs to target the dictators’ most important sources of power.

Escalating freedom

Combined with political defiance during the phase of selective resistance, the growth of autonomous social, economic, cultural, and political institutions progressively expands the “democratic space” of the society and shrinks the control of the dictatorship. As the civil institutions of the society become stronger vis-à-vis the dictatorship, then, whatever the dictators may wish, the population is incrementally building an independent society outside of their control. If and when the dictatorship intervenes to halt this “escalating freedom,” nonviolent struggle can be applied in defense of this newly won space and the dictatorship will be faced with yet another “front” in the struggle.

In time, this combination of resistance and institution building can lead to de facto freedom, making the collapse of the dictatorship and the formal installation of a democratic system undeniable because the power relationships within the society have been fundamentally altered.

Poland in the 1970s and 1980s provides a clear example of the progressive reclaiming of a society’s functions and institutions by the resistance. The Catholic church had been persecuted but never brought under full Communist control. In 1976 certain intellectuals and workers formed small groups such as K.O.R. (Workers Defense Committee) to advance their political ideas. The organization of the Solidarity trade union with its power to wield effective strikes forced its own legalization in 1980. Peasants, students, and many other groups also formed their own independent organizations. When the Communists realized that these groups had changed the power realities, Solidarity was again banned and the Communists resorted to military rule.

Even under martial law, with many imprisonments and harsh persecution, the new independent institutions of the society continued to function. For example, dozens of illegal newspapers and magazines continued to be published. Illegal publishing houses annually issued hundreds of books, while well-known writers boycotted Communist publications and government publishing houses. Similar activities continued in other parts of the society.

Under the Jaruselski military regime, the military-Communist government was at one point described as bouncing around on the top of the society. The officials still occupied government offices and buildings. The regime could still strike down into the society, with punishments, arrests, imprisonment, seizure of printing presses, and the like. The dictatorship, however, could not control the society. From that point, it was only a matter of time until the society was able to bring down the regime completely.

Even while a dictatorship still occupies government positions it is sometimes possible to organize a democratic “parallel government.” This would increasingly operate as a rival government to which loyalty, compliance, and cooperation are given by the population and the society’s institutions. The dictatorship would then consequently, on an increasing basis, be deprived of these characteristics of government. Eventually, the democratic parallel government may fully replace the dictatorial regime as part of the transition to a democratic system. In due course then a constitution would be adopted and elections held as part of the transition.

Disintegrating the dictatorship

While the institutional transformation of the society is taking place, the defiance and noncooperation movement may escalate. Strategists of the democratic forces should contemplate early that there will come a time when the democratic forces can move beyond selective resistance and launch mass defiance. In most cases, time will be required for creating, building, or expanding resistance capacities, and the development of mass defiance may occur only after several years. During this interim period campaigns of selective resistance should be launched with increasingly important political objectives. Larger parts of the population at all levels of the society should become involved. Given determined and disciplined political defiance during this escalation of activities, the internal weaknesses of the dictatorship are likely to become increasingly obvious [Internal divisions of the CPP which run deep].

The combination of strong political defiance and the building of independent institutions is likely in time to produce widespread international attention favorable to the democratic forces. It may also produce international diplomatic condemnations, boycotts, and embargoes in support of the democratic forces (as it did for Poland).

Strategists should be aware that in some situations the collapse of the dictatorship may occur extremely rapidly, as in East Germany in 1989. This can happen when the sources of power are massively severed as a result of the whole population’s revulsion against the dictatorship. This pattern is not usual, however, and it is better to plan for a long-term struggle (but to be prepared for a short one).

During the course of the liberation struggle, victories, even on limited issues, should be celebrated. Those who have earned the victory should be recognized. Celebrations with vigilance should also help to keep up the morale needed for future stages of the struggle.

Handling success responsibly

Planners of the grand strategy should calculate in advance the possible and preferred ways in which a successful struggle might best be concluded in order to prevent the rise of a new dictatorship and to ensure the gradual establishment of a durable democratic system.

The democrats should calculate how the transition from the dictatorship to the interim government shall be handled at the end of the struggle. It is desirable at that time to establish quickly a new functioning government. However, it must not be merely the old one with new personnel. It is necessary to calculate what sections of the old governmental structure (as the political police) are to be completely abolished because of their inherent anti-democratic character and which sections retained to be subjected to later democratization efforts. A complete governmental void could open the way to chaos or a new dictatorship.

Thought should be given in advance to determine what is to be the policy toward high officials of the dictatorship when its power disintegrates. For example, are the dictators to be brought to trial in a court? Are they to be permitted to leave the country permanently? What other options may there be that are consistent with political defiance, the need for reconstructing the country, and building a democracy following the victory? A blood bath must be avoided which could have drastic consequences on the possibility of a future democratic system.

Specific plans for the transition to democracy should be ready for application when the dictatorship is weakening or collapses. Such plans will help to prevent another group from seizing state power through a coup d’état. Plans for the institution of democratic constitutional government with full political and personal liberties will also be required. The changes won at a great price should not be lost through lack of planning.

When confronted with the increasingly empowered population and the growth of independent democratic groups and institutions — both of which the dictatorship is unable to control — the dictators will find that their whole venture is unravelling. Massive shut-downs of the society, general strikes, mass stay-at-homes, defiant marches, or other activities will increasingly undermine the dictators’ own organization and related institutions. As a consequence of such defiance and noncooperation, executed wisely and with mass participation over time, the dictators would become powerless and the democratic defenders would, without violence, triumph. The dictatorship would disintegrate before the defiant population.

Not every such effort will succeed, especially not easily, and rarely quickly. It should be remembered that as many military wars are lost as are won. However, political defiance offers a real possibility of victory. As stated earlier, that possibility can be greatly increased through the development of a wise grand strategy, careful strategic planning, hard work, and disciplined courageous struggle.