Inside the Obama campaign, almost without anyone noticing, an insurgent generation of organizers has built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level.

The “New Organizers” have succeeded in building what many netroots-oriented campaigners have been dreaming about for a decade. Other recent attempts have failed because they were either so “top-down” and/or poorly-managed that they choked volunteer leadership and enthusiasm; or because they were so dogmatically fixated on pure peer-to-peer or “bottom-up” organizing that they rejected basic management, accountability and planning. The architects and builders of the Obama field campaign, on the other hand, have undogmatically mixed timeless traditions and discipline of good organizing with new technologies of decentralization and self-organization.

Win or lose, “The New Organizers” have already transformed thousands of communities—and revolutionized the way organizing itself will be understood and practiced for at least the next generation. Obama must continue to feed and lead the organization they have built—either as president or in opposition. If he doesn’t, then the broader progressive movement needs to figure out how to pick this up, keep it going and spread it to all 50 states. For any of that to happen, the incredible organizing that has taken place this year inside Obama’s campaign—and also here and there in Clinton’s—needs to be thoroughly understood and celebrated. Toward that end, here are glimpses from several days of observations and interviews in Central and Southwest Ohio. This article focuses on the field program’s innovative “neighborhood team” structure and the philosophy of volunteer management underlying it that is best summarized by the field campaign’s ubiquitous motto: “Respect. Empower. Include.” [Read more →]

“Direct action gets the goods”

The person who wrote this definitely could have meant “social power gets the goods”. But they just as easily could have thought that the use of direct action, the tactic itself, is the essense of what makes an action effective. Those who think that direct action is what brings about victories are often confused, annoyed, or frustrated when it fails to do so. It is important to move beyond simplistic slogans like this, and especially dogma around everything from direct action and voting, to issues of state power and reform struggles. Without breaking through these simplistic concepts, we will be ill-equipped to maximize our chances of success and effectively analyze our failures and setbacks.

Most good organizers who use direct action as a tactic would agree that greater numbers and higher consciousness among participants will increase the likelihood of success. But unless a correct understanding of the nature of power is central to their “conceptual toolbox”, they are less likely to convey the correct lessons to those they lead, or are more likely to convey them in a language which is misinterpreted by newer members. If the central slogan they use is “direct action gets the goods”, and they have an implicit understanding that direct action works best with large numbers and with a high level of political unity, then they can be effective leaders. Unfortunately, their use of the term often gives newer members with an incoherent and/or poorly synthesized perspective on organizing, power, and action. Effective organizers would do well to say precisely what they mean: organizing that builds evermore social power is what “gets the goods”, and direct action is often an extremely useful tactic in the context of an well-planned strategy. We should not elevate tactics to the level of strategy nor should we misattribute causal attributes (i.e. incorrectly attributing to the success of a campaign to direct action, compared to correctly attributing the success of a campaign to the organized social power of progressives who used direct action as part of an effective and well-planned strategy).

As more youth organizers correctly grasp the nature of power and strategy, our movement will flurish in ways previously unseen.

(Note: This is part 2 of a multi-post series… Part Three can be read by clicking here!)

An Offensive Left in America

I was going to word this slightly differently, something along the lines of “what would it take to win”, but after reading a terrific post by my friend Matt, I’ll ask instead “what would it take for the (future) Left to go on the offensive?” That is, what would it take for a growing American Left to actually be relevant when crises happen in the future? What would it take for the American Left to seize the moment when the climate crisis worsens, or recession deepens? Returning to the original phrasing: what would it take to go on the offensive?

Thinking About Winning Through a Different View of Power

Leftists need to start conceptualizing power differently.

Progressives in the United States often have a strangely authoritarian view of power. If I’d have to argue an origin of the analysis of power, I’d probably have to point to the obvious one: growing up in an authoritarian system. Most leftists see “winning” as an inherently top down endeavor. This view probably comes from not transcending what we’ve been taught by the dominant ideology. They see revolution as either “seizing” or “smashing” what they see as “the State”. Often in conceptualizing the state, they do not include the institutions of society on which it is based and dependent.

A common definition of the State (i.e. the government) used by progressives is “a force that is alienated from and above the people”. Coming from a different perspective, the Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci, and well as American progressive Gene Sharp, both explained how governments are dependent on the consent and cooperation of the “governed”. More accurately power is seen as not a division between “the State” and “the People”, but rather those who control the state bureaucracy and those who just passively participate in its foundational institutions. These institutions - schools, churches, workplaces, our communities and local governments - all form the spine of the state. Without the active cooperation of the majority of these institutions, the government would cease to exist. The greatest myth of State power is that it is “alienated and above the people”. Without the participation of soldiers and police for example - two segments of the people - a State can’t exist. Another one may rise in its place, but that particular form of government disappears.

Winning means weakening and taking away the State’s power, transforming its power, and revolutionizing the type of power the institution wields. You can’t chop off the top of the power pyramid and expect to win. Nor can you expect the pyramid to just “fall apart”. To win, you’ve got to gain control of the pyramid. Sometimes that means seizing the top of it. Sometimes that means getting the majority of the pyramid’s base to agree with you. Usually it means gaining control of the balance of power - that is, gaining control of enough of the pyramid, enough crucial locations within it as to be able to exercise control over the entire system. In a practical sense, this means putting a lot of work into breaking down the dominant ideology which keep people cooperating with the government instead of building institutions of self-rule.

Victory Means Winning the War
Following that, winning isn’t primarily about the day-to-day battles. Rosa Luxembourg, the courageous German revolutionary, once said: “you lose, you lose, you lose… you win.” By this she meant that on the path towards victory there will be many setbacks. There will be many places where the going gets tough, where it seems like victory is impossible, where it seems like the game is rigged (because, in fact, it is). But winning isn’t about winning all the battles. While innovating and honing our strategy will lead to more tactical victories, we will always face setbacks. Winning is about winning a series of reforms and about increasing the strength of the movement in such a way which ultimately leads to our eventual seizure of power throughout society - seizure of power, institutionally and ideologically, in religious institutions, communities, families, workplaces, and government. Winning is primarily about winning the war.

To win we will need very large numbers of people - millions of people - who actively are fighting for the new world, who share a common vision, who have a common analysis of  the task ahead, and who are organized into fighting political organizations capable of consolidating gains, and pushing further after every reform campaign that is one.

An Offensive Left

In the United States, there is no left-wing force that is capable of defending past gains much less going on the offensive to win increasingly more radical, bold, yet winnable demands on a path towards social revolution and seizure of power. There are leftists in the U.S., but no Left. But there is no commonality of action, vision, and strategy among them. And a population, however big, that does not have unity of vision and action, is no force at all.

Crises are a combination of both threats and opportunities, the point at which things can begin to change in various directions. In our situation, with our society being plagued by deep ecological, cultural, and economic crises, we are faced with great threats and great opportunities. The ecological crisis in particular is a race for the survival of all life on Earth. You can’t find a bigger threat than that.

Yet despite these threats and opportunities, there is no Left to take the offensive during this crisis. There is no organized Left that has the ability to organize for and maximize reform gains and recruit new people who are questioning the nature of the system itself. There is no movement which is making the connections between ecology and economy, at deep, fundamental levels, counterpoising 1. capitalist chaos with the justice, stability and peace of a democratically planned economic system; 2. white supremacy with racial justice and imperialism with internationalism; 3. patriarchy with feminist kinship relations; and 4. the state with participatory democracy.

This relates to the authoritarian view of power that many leftists hold: They see the primary obstacles to social change as the military-police forces, the ruling class’s control of wealth, and the monopoly of elites on the media. As such, they don’t orient themselves towards the primary obstacle of what it really takes to win and what that precisely entails, namely the organizing of millions of people and the training of tens of thousands of revolutionary leaders and organizers.

Going on the offensive would mean that revolutionary organizations would be built to fulfill that task: to build movement organizations in their own right and push them forward in the most effective direction, to host study groups and education efforts, and to provide support and community to progressive and revolutionary forces. Instead of bickering about precise “lines” about revolutions which occurred a century ago, such a left would concern itself with unity of vision, strategy, and program. It would be the principled voice of reason and long-term goals within coalitions and movement organizations. It would win thousands to its cause not through the constant need to argue, but by reasoned debate where appropriate rooted, based on real contradictions that progressives run into, and by being the most dynamic, strategic and visionary force in the movement.

Its high time revolutionary democratic forces took their task of building for revolutionary seriously and oriented their actions towards achieving victory. Only then can we even begin to think about going on the offensive in the U.S.

(Read Part Three!)

(Note: This is part 1 of a multi-post series… Part Two can be read by clicking here!)

For the last few days, I’ve been hearing virtually the same thing from everyone with half a brain or half a conscience: why is the U.S. Government bailing out Wall Street while doing nothing to help ordinary Americans.

I’ve heard this from news anchors, and while walking down the street in New York City, reading in a cafe, sitting on the train, and talking to my family. I’ve event heard, on several occasions, people and news anchors directly questioning the very nature of free market economics and capitalism. More importantly, this is a consistent message coming from ordinary people across the political spectrum. I want to draw two points from this.

Tell Us Something We Don’t Know!

Everyone has thought for ages, continues to thinks, and will keep thinking in the future that our world, our economy, our government, and our culture are all utterly corrupt, undemocratic, and unjust. Someone close to me told me last week, flat out: “Brian, it’s the end of the world.” They were referring to the simultaneous bank failures, multiple hurricanes, Midwest floods, and other symptoms of the ongoing climate and economic crises.

Mind you, almost none of these messages are coming from the “American Left”. And for a very good reason: there is no “American Left”. There is no organized force in the United States capable of responding to crises such as these. But I’ll come back to that point in minute.

As I wrote in my last post, both President Bush and Senator McCain have been talking about how market economics are the “best system ever devised” (Bush) and how the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” (McCain). Senator Obama quickly responded that it showed how McCain’s statement was detached from the reality of what’s going on in our country. An organized left, if one actually existed, would have responded slightly differently I think. McCain isn’t detached - at least not on this issue. Neither is President Bush. They both know exactly what they are doing. They know that when the entire population is questioning if capitalism is even a workable system, you have to parrot back: “there is no alternative, stupid”, and “grow up”, “deal with reality”, or more precisely “capitalism is the best system ever devised” (Bush). An organized left would have seen these statements for what they are: apologies and propaganda used to uphold an utterly flawed and profoundly undemocratic economic system which is currently in deeply in crisis.

Even better, the people in this country needed no convincing that capitalism is a garbage system - they already knew it. It wasn’t the left who convinced young people that this system is undemocratic and unjust. Their daily experiences taught them that. Gone are the days when leftists in American have any justification for their belief that we can win Americans to our cause by explaining to them, day after day, why the system is rotten. They know that already. Gone are the days when leftists - both “old” and “new” - have any justification for their argument that we don’t need an inspiring and hopeful vision of the future in order to compel people to action. Barack Obama has a vision for America’s future. John McCain has a vision for America’s future. A developing left needs a vision for America’s future. People are tired of hearing about the problems. They already know what’s wrong. They want to hear about solutions. They want to hear about alternatives. They want to hear about a life after capitalism.

(Read Part Two!)

By Stephen Zunes
Source: Portside

The United States has done for the cause of democracy what the Soviet Union did for the cause of socialism. Not only has the Bush administration given democracy a bad name in much of the world, but its high-profile and highly suspect “democracy promotion” agenda has provided repressive regimes and their apologists an excuse to label any popular pro-democracy movement that challenges them as foreign agents, even when led by independent grassroots nonviolent activists.

In recent months, the governments of Zimbabwe, Iran, Belarus, and Burma, among others, have disingenuously claimed that popular nonviolent civil insurrections of the kind that toppled the corrupt and autocratic regimes in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine in recent years - and that could eventually threaten them as well - are somehow part of an effort by the Bush administration and its allies to instigate “soft coups” against governments deemed hostile to American interests and replace them by more compliant regimes.

This confuses two very different phenomena.

The U.S. government has undeniably provided small amounts of money to various opposition groups and political parties through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and other organs. Such funding has at times helped a number of opposition groups cover some of the costs of their operations, better enabling them to afford computers, Internet access, fax machines, printing costs, office space and other materials. Assistance from foreign governments has also helped provide for poll watchers and other logistical support to help insure free and fair elections. In addition, the United States, through the NED, the IRI and other U.S.-funded projects, has also provided seminars and other training for opposition leaders in campaign strategies.

What is controversial about these endeavors is that they have been directed primarily at helping conservative, pro-Western parties with a free-market orientation and generally not parties of the democratic left. Nor are they aimed solely at pro-democracy struggles challenging autocratic regimes. Indeed, U.S. agencies have also backed opposition parties in countries such as Venezuela, despite it already being a democracy.

Some opposition groups in some countries have welcomed U.S. assistance while others have rejected such aid on principle. There is no evidence, however, to suggest - even in cases where this kind of limited U.S. support for opposition organizations has taken place - that the U.S. government or any U.S.-funded entity has ever provided training, advice, or strategic assistance for the kind of mass popular nonviolent action campaigns that have toppled governments or threatened the survival of incumbent regimes.

How Democratic Change Occurs

The United States remains the world’s number one supplier of armaments and security assistance to the world’s dictatorships. There is little reason to take seriously the idea that U.S. foreign policy, under either Republican or Democratic administrations, has been based upon a sincere belief in advancing freedom and democracy as a matter of principle. History has shown repeatedly that the U.S. government, like most Western powers, supports democratic rule only if it is seen to promote perceived economic and strategic interests. Conversely, the U.S. government has frequently opposed democratic rule if it is seen to be contrary to perceived economic and strategic interests. Since the vast majority of Americans, according to public opinion polls, do support democracy as a matter of principle, however, support for “democracy” has long been used as a rationalization for various U.S. foreign policy initiatives, even when these policies end up supporting authoritarianism and repression. As a result, though support for democratic change in countries ruled by autocratic regimes is certainly a worthwhile goal, skepticism over the Bush administration’s pro-democracy rhetoric is indeed warranted.

In any case, true democratic change comes from within. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a series of broadly based nonviolent social movements that have succeeded in toppling dictatorships and forcing democratic reforms in such diverse countries as the Philippines, Chile, Bolivia, Madagascar, Nepal, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, Serbia, Mali, and Ukraine. Even the relatively conservative Washington-based Freedom House, after examining the 67 countries that have moved from authoritarianism to varying degrees of democratic governance over the past few decades (www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/29.pdf) published a study concluding that these transitions did not come as a result of foreign intervention and only rarely through armed revolt or voluntary elite-driven reforms. In the overwhelming majority of cases, according to this report, change came through democratic civil society organizations engaging in massive nonviolent demonstrations and other forms of civil resistance, such as strikes, boycotts, tax refusal, occupations of public space, and other forms of non- cooperation.

Whenever governments are challenged by their own people, they tend to claim that those struggling for freedom and justice are traitors to the nation and agents of foreign enemies. In previous decades, opposition activists challenging U.S.-backed dictatorships in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere were routinely labeled as “communist agents” and “Soviet sympathizers.” Today, pro-democracy movements within U.S. client states in the Middle East are depicted as “Islamic fundamentalists” and “Iranian agents.” Similarly, opposition activists in Iran, Belarus, Burma, and Zimbabwe have been labeled as “supporters of Western imperialism” and “American agents.”

In reality, the limited amount of financial support provided to opposition groups by the United States and other Western governments in recent years cannot cause a nonviolent liberal democratic revolution to take place any more than the limited Soviet financial and material support for leftist movements in previous decades could cause an armed socialist revolution to take place. As Marxists and others familiar with popular movements have long recognized, revolutions are the result of certain objective conditions. Indeed, no amount of money could force hundreds of thousands of people to leave their jobs, homes, schools, and families to face down heavily armed police and tanks and put their bodies on the line unless they had a sincere motivation to do so.

Conspiracy Theories

A number of regimes facing popular opposition have gone so far as to claim that certain small independent non- profit organizations and supporters of nonviolent action from Europe and the United States who have provided seminars and workshops for opposition activists on the history and dynamics of nonviolent resistance are somehow working as agents of the Bush administration. Some Western bloggers and other writers critical of the Bush administration and understandably concerned about U.S. intervention in the name of “democracy,” have actually bought into some of the claims by these governments. These conspiracy theories have in turn been picked up by some progressive websites and periodicals and even by some in the mainstream press, which then repeat them as fact.

Virtually all of these seminars and workshops, however, come at the direct request of opposition organizers themselves. And at least as many of them have been on behalf of pro-democracy activists struggling against right-wing dictatorships as there have been on behalf of pro-democracy activists struggling against left-wing dictatorships. Over just this past year, for example, my colleagues and I have worked with Egyptians, Maldivians, Palestinians, West Papuans, Sahrawis, Azerbaijanis, and Guatemalan Indians struggling against repressive U.S.- backed governments. In addition, virtually all of these groups have a strict policy of refusing support from the NED or any other government-funded entities. As a result of my own involvement in a number of these groups and personally knowing most of their principal workshop leaders, I recognize that charges that Gene Sharp, Jack DuVall, Bob Helvey, Ivan Marovic, the Albert Einstein Institution, the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), and the Center on Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) are somehow in cahoots with the CIA or are serving as agents of U.S. imperialism are totally unfounded.

Unfortunately, even Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - echoed by some of his North American supporters - has apparently fallen for these false charges and has accused some of these individuals and groups of plotting with his opponents to overthrow him. Chavez has every right to be a bit paranoid, given the very real U.S. government efforts to subvert his regime, including support for a short-lived coup in 2002. In reality, however, the only visit to Venezuela that has taken place on behalf of any of these non-profit groups engaged in educational efforts on strategic nonviolence was in early 2006 when I - along with David Hartsough, the radical pacifist director of Peaceworkers - led a series of workshops at the World Social Forum in Caracas. There we lectured and led discussions on the power of nonviolent resistance as well as offered a series of screenings of a film ICNC helped develop on the pro-democracy movement in Chile against the former U.S.-backed dictator Augusto Pinochet. The only reference to Venezuela during those workshops was how massive nonviolent action could be used to resist a possible coup against Chavez, not foment one. In fact, Hartsough and I met with some Venezuelan officials regarding proposals that the government train the population in various methods of nonviolent civil defense to resist any possible future attempts to overthrow Chavez.

Workshops on Strategic Nonviolence

The American and European groups that share generic information on the history and dynamics of strategic nonviolence with civil society organizations in foreign countries are not unlike the Western private voluntary organizations that share environmentally sustainable technologies and agricultural techniques to farmers in developing nations. Both offer useful tools that, if applied consistently and effectively, could improve the quality of life for millions of people. There is nothing “imperialistic” about it.

Just as sustainable agricultural technologies and methods are more effective in meeting human needs and preserving the planet than the conventional development strategies promoted by Western governments, nonviolent action has been shown to be more effective in advancing democratic change than threats of foreign military intervention, backing coup plotters, imposing punitive sanctions, supporting armed rebel groups, and other methods traditionally instigated by the United States and its allies. And just as the application of appropriate technologies can also be a means of countering the damage caused by unsustainable neo- liberal economic models pushed by Western governments and international financial institutions, the use of massive nonviolent action can counter some of the damage resulting from the arms trade, military intervention, and other harmful manifestations of Western militarism.

Development based on Western models usually means that multinational corporations and the governments of wealthy capitalist countries end up exerting a large degree of control over these societies, whereas appropriate technologies allow for genuine independence and self-sufficiency. Similarly, unlike fomenting a military coup or establishing a military occupation - which relies on asserting control over the population and potential political opponents - successful nonviolent civil insurrections are necessarily based on a broad coalition of popular movements and are therefore impossible for an outside power to control.

It is ironic, then, that some elements of the left are attacking those very individuals and groups who are trying to disseminate these tools of popular empowerment against the forces of oppression and imperialism.

People Power

Another difference between these people-to-people educational efforts and U.S. intervention is that, unlike the NED and other government-backed “pro- democracy” efforts, which often focus on developing conventional political initiatives led by pro-Western elites, these workshops on strategic nonviolence are primarily designed for grassroots activists unaffiliated with established political parties who seek to make change from below.

Historically, individuals and groups with experience in effective nonviolent action campaigns tend to come from leftist and pacifist traditions which carry a skeptical view of government power, particularly governments with a history of militarism and conquest. For example, my own background in strategic nonviolent action is rooted in my involvement in the late 1970s as a nonviolence trainer for the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance and the nonviolent revolutionary group Movement for a New Society, both of which were radically decentralist in structure and decidedly anti-capitalist and anti- imperialist in orientation. More recently, my fellow workshop leaders have included a South African veteran of the anti-apartheid United Democratic Front, a leading Palestinian activist from the first intifada, and former student leaders from the left-wing Serbian opposition to Milosevic.

Conversely, large bureaucratic governments accustomed to projecting political power through military force or elite diplomatic channels have little understanding or appreciation of nonviolent action or any other kind of mass popular struggle. Indeed, what would CIA operatives know about nonviolence, much less grassroots organizing?

In short, not only is it naive to assume than an external power could provoke a revolution of any kind, it should be apparent that the U.S. government does not know the first thing about fomenting a nonviolent civil insurrection. As a result, the dilemma for U.S. policy- makers - and the hope for all of us who support democracy as a matter of principle and not political expediency - is that the most realistic way to overthrow the world’s remaining autocratic regimes is through a process the U.S. government cannot control.

The U.S. government has historically promoted regime change through military invasions, coup d’etats, and other kinds of violent seizures of power that install an undemocratic minority. Nonviolent “people power” movements, by contrast, make regime change possible through empowering pro-democratic majorities. As a result, the best hope for advancing freedom and democracy in the world’s remaining autocratic states comes from civil society, not the U.S. government, which deserves neither the credit nor the blame for the growing phenomenon of nonviolent democratic revolutions.

Strengthening the Bush Agenda

The emergence of civil society organizations and the growing awareness of the power of nonviolent action in recent years have been among the most positive political developments in what has otherwise been largely depressing political times. It is most unfortunate, then, that supposedly “progressive” voices have chosen to attack this populist grass roots phenomenon as some kind of Bush administration conspiracy.

It is also ironic that so many on the American left - after years of romanticizing armed struggle as the only way to defeat dictatorships, disparaging the potential of nonviolent action to overthrow repressive governments, and dismissing the notion of a nonviolent revolution — are now expressing their alarm at how successful popular nonviolent insurrections can be, even to the point of naively thinking that it is so easy to pull off that it could somehow be organized from foreign capitals. In reality, every successful popular nonviolent insurrection has been a home grown movement rooted in the realization by the masses that their rulers were illegitimate and the current political system was incapable of redressing injustice. By contrast, no nonviolent insurrection has succeeded when the movement’s leadership and agenda did not have the backing of the majority of the population. This is why the 2002-2003 “strike” in Venezuela’s oil industry failed to bring down Chavez while comparable disruptions to economies elsewhere have often forced out less popular leaders.

“Leftist” critics of nonviolent pro-democracy movements parallel right-wing supporters of U.S. intervention in that both denigrate the power of individuals to take their destiny into their own hands and overthrow oppressive leaders and institutions. Instead, both appear to believe that people are passive victims and that social and political change can only come through the manipulation of foreign powers.

Reagan Redux

For example, despite President Ronald Reagan’s insistence during the 1980s that the popular armed insurgencies that challenged repressive U.S.-backed regimes in Central America were the result of a Soviet “hit list,” the reality was that the revolutions in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala were homegrown popular movements. The Soviets provided a limited amount of assistance and obviously wanted to take political advantage of the possible overthrow of pro-American oligarchs by having them replaced with leftist revolutionaries who would be friendlier to their interests. But the oppressed peasants and workers of those Central American countries were not following the dictates of Moscow. They were struggling for basic rights and an end to repression.

Similar claims heard today that the United States is somehow a major force behind contemporary popular movements against dictatorships in Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Belarus or that the United States was somehow responsible for the successes of previous movements in Serbia, Georgia or Ukraine are equally ludicrous. This attitude parallels claims by those on the right who disingenuously credited Reagan’s dangerous and militaristic Cold War policies for the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and tried to depict the union activists, peasants, students, priests, and others martyred in the course of popular struggles in Central America as Soviet agents.

In addition, it is important to remember that the vast majority of successful nonviolent civil insurrections have not been against dictatorships opposed by the U.S. government, but dictatorships supported by the U.S. government. Right-wing autocrats toppled by such “people power” movements have included Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, the Shah of Iran, Duvalier in Haiti, Pinochet in Chile, Chun in South Korea, and Numeiry in Sudan, to name only a few.

Another problem with this kind of simplistic reductionism is that when nonviolent civil insurrections do succeed in bringing democrats to power in countries previously under anti-American dictatorships, the new often-inexperienced leaders are faced with plaudits from the American right and suspicion from the European and North American left. This could lead them to wonder who their friends really are and reinforce the myth that those of the right, rather than the left, are the real champions of freedom.

The conspiratorial thinking and denigration of genuine popular movements appearing increasingly in some leftist circles serves to strengthen the hand of repressive regimes, weaken democratic forces, and bolster the argument of American neo-conservatives that only U.S. militarism and intervention - and not nonviolent struggle by oppressed peoples themselves - is capable of freeing those suffering under repressive rule.

How Change Occurs

Successful nonviolent revolutions, like successful armed revolutions, often take years or decades to develop as part of an organic process within the body politic of a given country. There is no standardized formula for success that a foreign government or a foreign non- governmental organization could put together, since the history, culture and political alignments of each country are unique. No foreign government or NGO can recruit or mobilize the large numbers of ordinary civilians necessary to build a movement capable of effectively challenging the established political leadership, much less of toppling a government.

Trainers and workshop leaders like me and my colleagues emphasize certain strategies and tactics that have been successful elsewhere in applying pressure on governments to change their policies and undermining the support and loyalty required for governments to successfully suppress the opposition. In some cases, local activists may try to emulate some of them. However, a regime will lose power only if it tries to forcibly maintain a system that the people oppose, not because a foreign workshop leader described to a small group of opposition activists certain tactics that had been used successfully in another country at another time.

In maintaining our steadfast opposition to U.S. interventionism and exposing the hypocrisy and double- standards of the Bush administration’s rhetoric in support of democracy, we must also challenge those who denigrate popular indigenous movements as creations of Washington or slander reputable non-profit groups that share their generic knowledge of nonviolent strategies and tactics with like-minded organizations overseas.

Finally, both to maintain our credibility and because it is the right thing to do, progressives should recognize the moral imperative of opposing repressive regimes regardless of their ideology or their relationship with the United States. Progressives should also embrace strategic nonviolent action in the cause of freedom as an ethical and realistic alternative to U.S. interventionism.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus and a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. He is the principal co-editor of Nonviolent Social Movements (Blackwell, 1999) and chairs the board of academic advisors for the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco