The Strategic Theory of Nonviolent Defence: A Gandhian Approach

Note: Last July, Robert Burrowes completed his research on nonviolent
defence.  The abstract of his thesis/book is reprinted below.

Can nonviolent defence be an effective strategy against military violence? 
This study will attempt to answer this question.

Nonviolent Defence
It is apparent that research into nonviolent forms of defence is at a
standstill; since the publication of books by Stephen King-Hall and Bradford
Lyttle in 1958, it is evident that there have been no significant theoretical
breakthroughs.

In part, this standstill can be attributed to the nature of the research. 
Historically, exponents of nonviolent forms of defence have attempted to
formulate their particular approach within a conceptual framework - either
classical strategic theory or traditional defence doctrine - which is
inappropriate for the task. But the problem is more fundamental than this. 
As is suggested by the variety of names by which nonviolent forms of defence
are known - including civilian-based defence and social defence - there are
fundamental differences, even among its advocates, regarding the concept
itself.  In essence, the terms and definitions which are used in relation to
nonviolent forms of defence reflect divergent conceptions of society,
philosophy, conflict and security and it is the failure to systematically
tackle questions in relation to these underlying conceptions that accounts,
in large part, for the stagnating status of the research. It is for this
reason that this study attaches such importance to the notion of 'social
cosmology'.

The Social Cosmology
As it is defined in this inquiry, a society's social cosmology consists of
three mutually reinforcing components: its particular set of social
relations, its prevailing philosophy about the nature of society (which
includes a conception of human nature) and its strategies for dealing with
conflict.  These components are described as mutually reinforcing because
each one helps to shape, as well as reflects, the social cosmology in which
it evolves.

A secondary task of this study is to substantiate a series of propositions in
relation to the notion of social cosmology: to demonstrate, through its use
throughout this study, that the notion itself is a valuable analytical and
explanatory tool for those seeking to understand the nature of human
societies; to substantiate the description of the dominant social cosmology
outlined in the Introduction; to subject the dominant cosmology to critical
scrutiny; and to demonstrate that in order to change a society, it is
necessary to change all three components of its social cosmology.  Moreover,
this study will argue, in order to be functional in the long term, each
component of any cosmology must be oriented to the satisfaction of human
needs.

While this study outlines the essential features of each component of any
functional social cosmology, it devotes most attention to just one component:
the strategies for dealing with conflict.  In particular, it develops a
strategic theory and a strategic framework for planning a strategy of
nonviolent defence.

The Strategic Theory and the Strategic Framework
In the attempt to demonstrate its principal hypothesis - that the most
effective way to resist military violence is to use a strategy of nonviolent
defence - this study develops a new and comprehensive strategic theory.  It
does this by synthesising selected elements taken from three previously
unrelated sources: the strategic theory of Carl von Clausewitz, the
conceptions of conflict and nonviolence developed by Mohandas K. Gandhi and
recent research in the fields of human needs and conflict theory.  Using this
theory, together with insights derived from an analysis of Gandhi's campaigns
of nonviolent struggle, the study also identifies twelve components of a
strategic framework which can be used to plan a strategy of nonviolent
defence.  The principal aims of this study are to elaborate this strategic
theory and its associated strategic framework and to use them to describe the
essential features of a strategy of nonviolent defence.

Conclusion
This study concludes that nonviolent defence can be an effective strategy
against military violence.  This can be explained theoretically and is
consistent with the empirical evidence provided by the historical use of
nonviolence.  Moreover, if the criterion for judging the effectiveness of any
strategy is the extent to which it addresses the causes of the conflict
itself, then a strategy of nonviolent defence is the most effective response
to an act of military aggression.
Robert J. Burrowes