Civilian-Based Defense: A Change in Great Expectations

For all the sincere and enthusiastic attention and research CBD has enjoyed
in the past, it seems to be at an impasse in the present.  As Chris Kruegler
reported in his keynote speech to the CBD consultation in Washington D.C.
this past November (see News & Opinion, January 1991, for a report on the
consultation), there is good news as well as bad news.  The bad news is that
CBD is a policy without a country and the good news is that it has survived
because it has been unread.  Pretty gloomy stuff.  It all sounds like bad
news to me, the truth of the matter being that, for whatever reasons, CBD has
not seemed to progress at all.

In addition to this lack of progress, there is an impatience that not only
visits itself upon proponents of CBD specifically, but supporters of
nonviolent action (NVA) in general.  Although there is nothing wrong with
being anxious to reduce suffering, save lives, and save the world, impatience
or lack of careful, long-term thinking will only lead to unrealistic
expectations for CBD, which can only do more damage than good.  We are apt to
be disappointed when we expect too much, and worse than that, the idea is
then likely to be discredited.  It becomes reduced to making excuses when it
doesn't "succeed" according to current expectations.

But perhaps there is a way out of this impasse, a way to view CBD with
different eyes and make its future a bit more hopeful.  It may be worth
considering that "Great Expectations" (a la Dickens) for CBD have been
disappointing not just because the concept has been unread by the outside
audience, but has also been misread by those within the field.  To expect
something out of CBD may not be so wrong, but what is expected might be
wrongheaded.  There is not much of an impasse at all if the concept is viewed
with a wide angle lens, aimed from a new direction.

The problem is that it should not continue to be judged as it is currently,
with "success" determined by CBD's incorporation into a country's defense
system.  It may be too much to ask at this point in history, and at this
point in its development.  No wonder there is disappointment in the field,
for by using that method, one lines up all the countries in a row, like
dominoes, and watches them fall one after the other as CBD's failure to
integrate into individual defense systems is announced.  To continue on the
same track is to invite and then guarantee disappointment, for by determining
CBD's progress according to the boundary lines that make up different
countries, we also bind up how to determine CBD's success.  If CBD continues
to be measured by that particular yardstick, then it is doomed indeed.  The
progress of CBD needs to be measured in a different way so that the
expectations can change.  Besides, clamouring for "official" status may prove
to be ultimately unwise anyway.

If the expectations change, the concept will be more prepared to respond to
tough challenges from the outside world.  To do so it needs a better working
model, one that everyone can understand, but is not oversimplified to the
point of error.  Very distinct and recognizable lines need to be drawn, for
example, illustrating the difference between the nonviolent action practiced
by the Danes in WWII, the Czechs in 1968, and the CBD concept which so many
people are anxiously waiting to see adopted and put into use.  And since
"nonviolent action" is the rubric under which CBD falls, then it is
nonviolent action itself that needs continued research, since what will be
found true for NVA can also be applied and adapted to the more specific idea
of CBD.

A more historical perspective is needed as well, one that understands the
totality of what nonviolent action asks a people to do.  It is not only
another way of dealing with conflict, merely requiring an intellectual
about-face; but a more complex revolution, a reordering of the individual,
the society, the species.  It reaches down below the surface of our being and
chokes the very roots of what many of us believe is "only human." It asks us
to think and behave in ways to which many people are not accustomed.

Nonviolent action challenges not only the military machines of late twentieth
century nations, but also a very old and deeply entrenched state of mind: a
hideous monster made up of all the hatred, vengeance, plunder, pillage,
spoils, profit, suffering, death, weapons, strategies, and even military
bureaucracies that have accumulated since the dawn of Homo sapiens.  It is
not reasonable to expect a mere thirty years of concentrated research on
theory and case studies to compete and then even begin to make great gains on
a way of being that is thousands of years old.  To expect so borders on
arrogance.  How many years, and how much writing should it take for the idea
to begin to stand up to thousands of texts on war and weaponry?  How much
time is legitimately required in order to completely reverse the thoughts,
habits, and practices of beings who have been living with these patterns for
so long?  The task ahead should not be over-simplified.

Some New Ideas
Having jumped on the bandwagon calling for further development of the idea,
the next step is to jump off and put some new (or perhaps old and forgotten)
ideas on the table. They don't pretend to be fully developed theses, but are
only thoughts perhaps worth consideration.  I have in mind three areas, and
will discuss them as briefly as possible.  In my readings and conversations
with other people, none of these ideas seem to have surfaced.

1.  As mentioned earlier, distinct lines need to be drawn between what could
be referred to as the different "types" of NVA, with NVA understood as a
method used in different capacities under different conditions. As it stands
now, nonviolent theory ranges anywhere from illegal and seemingly spontaneous
mass demonstrations to state-sanctioned strikes to state-supported nonviolent
civilian militias; a soup-pot of nonviolent activity.  Perhaps the conditions
under which NVA takes place can be organized as follows:

a) People living under a dictatorship or any form of tyranny who organize
themselves into any form of opposition to it could be said to be operating
under pre-democratic or de facto democratic conditions.  This is so since
they are technically already practicing one of the foundations of a classical
democracy, which is the active participation of the populace, or, rule by the
people.  By collectively agreeing to undertake a certain activity they have
made an agreement that is democratic in nature.

b) The second type takes place when a people practice resistance or voice
their opinions through allowable nonviolent activities, be it in the form of
strikes, sit-ins, referendums, demonstrations, etc.  This only takes place
within a system that utilizes democratic principles to one degree or another,
it not really mattering which label is assigned to that form of government. 
The degree to which the activities are not allowed is also the degree towards
which that government in fact actually leans towards some form of
dictatorship.

c) The third type would be CBD, that is, organized civilians either wholly or
partially responsible for the nonviolent defense of their country.  It is
supported and sanctioned by a government that not only believes the people
have a right to voice their opinions through various activities, but goes
even further and believes in them for the maintenance of the country's
integrity as well.

2.  Within these three types runs the common thread of democratic practices
or principles, be they permissible or not.  There is, then, a democratic
condition (or pre-condition), be it "de jure" or "de facto," required for
effectiveness in any of the three "types" of NVA.

What constitutes a democratic condition can be understood as the citizenry
more or less seeing themselves as equals actively engaged in their own
governing.  In the case of Czechoslovakia in 1968, certainly their efforts
were the efforts of a large underground, de facto democratic condition (this
is, of course, not the whole story, but perhaps one important aspect of it). 
Non-union workers on strike outside their factory is a different example of
de facto democratic condition, de facto in that they have no legal union
representation to speak for them, and so they speak for themselves.

At the other end of the scale is the idea of a citizen militia as the epitome
of democratic conditions, when the state officially supports the entire
populace (not only the military institution) to collectively and nonviolently
defend their own territory.  This is an example of democratic principles
operating officially (de jure) and in praxis (de facto), in all national
concerns, even defense.

Unfortunately, there is a down side to this idea which also merits serious
consideration

3. Perhaps CBD supporters should be content with a more organized grass-roots
movement and not lean so much towards "official" status.  There may be some
very good reasons why it would be unwise to systematize and officially
incorporate CBD into a country's defense system.

First of all it could lose its potency when caught up in the bureaucracy of
any institution that has so much influence over so large an amount of the
population and so important an object as the country's integrity.  No doubt
CBD would have to fall under guidance or approval at some bureaucratic level,
and as such, is bound to be watered down in the bureaucratic process.

Secondly, if CBD were a well-known and highly publicized, perhaps even
glamorized, aspect of a country's defense system, it would completely lose
its very important element of anonymity in the eyes of the offending party. 
It has often been pointed out that one advantage of NVA is its ability to
seem invisible to an invading force, and that if it can not be identified it
is not so easily undermined. An official and visible CBD system would be
subject to an opponent being able to interfere with the running parts that,
under less visible conditions, would be vital to CBD's effectiveness.  It
would be one more identifiable object for the enemy to plan to undermine, and
could begin to do so well ahead of any anticipated invasion.

Maintaining unofficial status may leave CBD without much of a capacity for
long-term planning, but that may be better than the destruction of the CBD
"headquarters" that is bound to exist should CBD become institutionalized. 
Attached to this issue is the idea of defense versus offence.  It needs to be
brought to the forefront since nonviolent activities are not necessarily only
defensive.  They can, in fact, be used by an invading power in order to
weaken known, institutionalized, nonviolent civilian resistance.

It may also be best left outside the official government organ and kept as
separated, shall we say, as church is from state.  No doubt CBD would be
likely to fall into the same corruptions religion had when no separation of
church and state existed.  Take into account the disintegrating role of
religion as a separate power, and perhaps CBD can take up the slack and serve
as an additional counterforce in the event of a coup or the rise of a
dictatorship.  Consider also how often nonviolent action and religion have
worked together in many historical cases.

Parting Thoughts, Spring cleaning
It is time to cull through the stacks and decide which ideas go and which
ones stay, for there certainly has been some wonderful scholarship in the
field.  But it is also time to put new ideas on the table, toss them around,
and perhaps eat a few words here and there.

Of course, this sort of talk may create a disturbance in the minds of some,
but perhaps some aspects of it are valid.  And perhaps those aspects should
be examined to determine whether they might provide a path to a new way of
thinking about NVA.  Even if researchers disagree with the ideas, maybe, at
the very least, more discussion will evolve and the expectations will begin
to change.

NVA needs to mature, and for some reason, it is still dragging around the
same old baby blanket.  The time has come for it to grow up and latch on to
something more than that which merely feels good.  Calls for new blood have
been put out for a long time, and time has emerged.  We need to pull NVA up
out of a rut that has existed far too long, examine new territory clearly,
and re-examine old ideas more creatively.  To continue on the same old track
is to promote inertia and eventually smother the idea altogether. 
Mary-Jane Fox

From CBD News and Opinion, March 1991