Civil Disobedience: A Practical Guide

By Malcolm Coxall

Traditional democratic structures in the Western world are coming under increasing pressure. A combination of political corruption, voter apathy and attacks on the rights of the citizen are being driven by authoritarian tendencies not seen for generations. In turn, this is being stoked by an artificial climate of fear, choreographed as a narrative of external terrorist threats and war against yet another "evil empire".

Much of the decision-making of government has been bought or hijacked by big business, whilst a whole generation of citizens has become increasingly cynical about the probity and ethics of their politicians. The current extent of public distrust and antagonism for the political elite is matched only by shocking levels of voter apathy throughout the democratic world.

This situation has created an unhealthy and perilous disconnection between the electorate and the political classes. As in any evolving environment, this gap is being filled. In this case, the democratic deficit is being bypassed using various forms of civil rebellion as a substitute for a functioning parliamentary system.

Nonviolent rebellion has a long history, but since the industrial revolution the use of organised civil disobedience has become increasingly widespread and refined. With the advent of the internet, civil rebellion itself has been totally revolutionised. The rules of the game have truly changed and control of "the truth" has, to some extent, finally been democratised.

These days, the big beasts on the political landscape are no longer labour unions fighting a local cause, but global movements, representing hundreds of millions of activists across a borderless world. And their armoury is formidable. Even the smallest local protest group has been immensely empowered by recent technological change.

Here we present a practical guide to civil rebellion, defining more than 300 separate ways in which citizens may effectively deliver a protest to an authority and the public, either alone or in a group.

In comparison with the ballot box, civil disobedience seems a rough way of dealing with authority. But, in the absence of a functioning democracy, it is rapidly becoming the last resort of the citizen to defend their freedom from an increasingly reviled, dysfunctional and autocratic political establishment.

This book is a practical guide. It is designed to help in the routine planning and organisation of peaceful protest. But the book also includes a history of civil rebellion and a moral and legal discussion of how civil disobedience may be used to achieve political objectives. This practical information is supported by a description of the best techniques for use in the strategic planning of protest actions and the management of protest organisations.

Though based on a wealth of protest history, the emphasis of this book is on contemporary protest and it focuses especially on the impact of internet and communications technology on current protest campaigns.

Politically, this guide pays particular attention to the techniques used by authorities to infiltrate and undermine legitimate civil protest movements and how these efforts can be detected and managed by a protest group. The book also provides practical advice on using similar subversive techniques against unscrupulous authorities.

Above all, the objective of this guide is to facilitate responsible political activists in delivering powerful, effective, nonviolent protests to an authority and to do this in a way which positively reinforces the concepts of democracy and universal human rights.

At a time when both democracy and human rights are threatened by the constant attacks by political opportunists, civil disobedience is beginning to move centre stage. Indeed, it seems to be rapidly becoming the only show in town for the aggrieved citizen of liberal persuasions in a world drowning in political corruption, popular apa

• Language: English
• Publisher: Malcolm Coxall
• Release date: Apr 21, 2015
• ISBN: 9788494178382

Malcolm Coxall

Malcolm Coxall is a management consultant, systems analyst, organic farmer and author, with more than 30 years experience working for many of the world's largest corporate and institutional organisations, starting in the field of dispute arbitration for the ILO. These experiences have provided him a ringside view of the management methodologies used by medium and large businesses in areas as diverse as banking, oil, defence, telecoms, insurance, manufacturing, mining, food, agriculture, aerospace, textiles, and heavy engineering. Malcolm has published articles on political science, sociology, human design, sustainable agriculture, organic food production, technology in organic farming, biodiversity, forest management, environmental protection and environmental economics. He is active in European environmental politics and was a successful private complainant in the European Court of Justice in several cases of national breaches of European environmental law. He now lives in Southern Spain from where he continues his IT and system consultancy work, writing and managing the family's organic olive farm.

Book preview

Civil Disobedience - A Practical Guide

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

A Practical Guide

Malcolm Coxall

Edited by Guy Caswell

Published by M.Coxall - Cornelio Books

Copyright 2015 Malcolm Coxall

First Published in United Kingdom , Spain , 2015

E-ISBN: 978-84-941783-8-2

Also available as a Paperback

I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude

Contents

---

Pref a ce

1. The Relatio n s h ip between Citizen, Authority and Civil Rebellion

1.1 Human Needs and our Relationship with Authority

1.1.1 What are Human Needs? An introduction to Maslow

1.1.2 Human Needs and Civil Rebellion

1.2 Why is Peaceful Civil Rebellion Important?

1.2.1 Civil rights and Responsibilities within a Social Contract

1.2.2 Authoritarianism, Civil Order and Civil Rebellion

1.2.3 Civil power: The Balance between Social Contract and Social Conflict

Notes on Chapter 1

2. Concepts of Civ i l Rebellion

2.1 Towards a Definition of Peaceful Civil Rebellion

2.2 Reasons for Civil Rebellion

2.2.1 The Abuse of Power

2.2.1.1 Forms of Abuse of Power

2.2.1.1.1 Spying on Citizens

2.2.1.1.2 Manipulation of Public Opinion

2.2.1.1.3 Kidnapping and Torture

2.2.1.1.4 Political Corruption

2.2.1.1.5 Detention without Trial

2.2.1.1.6 Collective Punishment

2.2.1.1.7 Rigging of Elections

2.2.1.1.8 State Terrorism

2.2.1.1.9 Impoverishment

2.2.1.1.10 Denial of Justice

2.2.1.1.11 Perversion of Justice, Show Trials

2.2.1.1.12 State and Corporate Censorship

2.2.1.1.13 Covering-Up Misdeeds

2.2.1.1.14 Suppression of Dissent

2.2.1.1.15 Pork-Barrel Politics

2.2.1.1.16 Misuse of Police Powers

2.2.1.1.17 Discrimination against Certain Groups

2.2.1.1.18 Blackmail by Authority

2.2.1.1.19 Theft of Citizens' Property

2.2.1.1.20 Miscellaneous Abuses of Power

2.2.2 Negligence in Authority

2.2.3 Government by Hubris

2.2.4 Lack of Ethics in Government

2.2.5 Other Motivations for Civil Disobedience

2.2.5.1 Arbitrary Government

2.2.5.2 Institutional Incompetence

2.2.5.3 Hypocrisy in Government

2.2.5.4 Disrespect in Government

2.3 Civil Disobedience and Trigger Events. What makes it s uddenly h appen?

2.3.1 Catastrophic Changes of State

2.3.2 Fear, Conflict and Authority - Flight or Fight and Catastrophe Theory

Notes on Chapter 2

3. The Morality a nd Legality of Civil Disobedience

3.1 The Moral Issues Involved In Peaceful Civil Rebellion

3.1.1 The Concept of Political Obligation

3.1.2 Breaking the Law in an Illegal or Unjust State

3.1.3 Breaking the Law in a Democratic Society

3.1.4 Do we have a Right to Civil Disobedience?

3.1.4.1 The Democratic Deficit

3.1.5 Violence versus Nonviolence

3.1.6 Moral Justifications of Civil Disobedience

3.1.6.1 Consequences

3.1.6.2 Motivation

3.1.6.3 Political Health and Civil Rebellion

3.1.6.4 Can Civil Rebellion be Immoral?

3.1.7 When is Civil Disobedience a Moral Obligation?

3.2 Other Moral Justifications for Civil Rebellion

3.2.1 Survival, Self Defence

3.2.2 Civil Disobedience as a Form of Defiance

3.2.3 Religious Justifications

3.2.4 War and Civil Disobedience

3.3 The Legal Issues Involved in Civil Disobedience

3.3.1 The Legal Nature of Civil Disobedience

3.3.2 A Legal Justification for Civil Disobedience?

3.3.3 Breaking the Law to Test the Law

3.3.4 When Does Legal Become Political - Size Matters

3.3.5 The Right to Civil Disobedience

3.3.6 Legal Necessity - When is Civil Disobedience a Legal Obligation?

Notes on Chapter 3

4. An Analysis of Civil Rebellion

4.1 The Spectrum of Civil Rebellion - from Peaceful Protest to Bloody Revolution

4.2 Types of Peaceful Civil Rebellion

4.2.1 The Spectrum of Civil Rebellion

4.2.3 Violent Escalation in Civil Rebellion

4.2.4 Is Peaceful Civil Rebellion Effective?

4.2.5 Alternatives to Civil Rebellion

4.2.5.1 Reasons why Democratic Structures Fail the Citizen

4.2.6 Advantages of Civil Rebellion

4.3 Authoritarian Attitudes and Responses to Civil Disobedience

Notes on Chapter 4

5. A History of Civil Disobedience

5.1 Social Influences on Human and Civil Rights, Technology and the Hierarchy of Needs

5.2 No Going Back: The Evolution of Human Freedom

5.3 Classical Ideas of Civil Disobedience in Europe

5.4 Christian Influences on Concepts of Civil Disobedience

5.5 Concepts of Civil Disobedience in Mediaeval Europe : Thomas Aquinas

5.6 The Peasants' Revolt

5.7 Religious Civil Disobedience in 16th Century Europe

5.8 The Diggers of 1649 - The First English Hippies

5.9 Pre-Revolutionary Ideas of Civil Responsibility and The Social Contract

5.10 The White Boys

5.11 The Enlightenment (I): The Utilitarians and Atheists

5.12 The Enlightenment (II): Kant and the Right to Revolution and Disobedience

5.13 Modern Times: Utilitarianism and Libertarianism

5.14 Anarchist Challenges to Political Obligation

5.15 Civil Disobedience in the Aftermath of the French Revolution

5.16 Shelly: The Masque of Anarchy, the Massacre at Peterloo and Nonviolence

5.17 Slavery in the United States , Thoreau and Civil Disobedience

5.18 The Luddite Rebels and Worker Disobedience

5.19 Daniel O'Connell, the Start of the Land League and the Monster Meetings.

5.20 Land Wars and the First Boycott

5.21 Marx, Engels and the Birth of Modern Socialism

5.22 Trade Unions and Worker Direct Action

5.23 Feminism and the Suffragette Struggle for Women's Equality

5.24 Pacifism and the Anti-War Movement

5.25 Fascism, War, Religion and Resistance: Dietrich Bonhoeffer

5.26 Mahatma Gandhi and Nonviolent Civil Disobedience

5.27 Fascism, Religion and Resistance (II): Martin Luther King Jr.

5.28 Nelson Mandela, the ANC and the Overthrow of Apartheid

5.29 Hippie Culture and the Movement Of '68

5.30 Greenpeace and New Forms of Environmental Protest

5.31 Stéphane Hessel and Time For Outrage

5.32 Movement 15M, the Indignados and the Anti Eviction Movements in Spain

5.33 A New Generation of Disobedience: The Whistleblow ers - Assange, Snowden, and Manning

5.34 The Present Day: Technology, Communications and Civil Disobedience

Notes on Chapter 5

6. Strategic C o nsiderations in Civil D isobedience and Protest

6.1 The Design and Management of an Effective Protest

6.1.1 Management of the Group

6.1.2 Clear Strategy, Good Tactics, Simple Rules and Careful Planning

6.1.3 Participation and Motivation of a Protest Group

6.1.4 Message Delivery

6.1.5 Designing Mass Appeals for the Protest and Attracting Supporters

6.1.6 Managing Public Relations and the Press

6.1.7 Managing Authority, Direct Action and the Law

6.1.8 Managing Protest Discipline and Safety

6.2 Protest Group Organisation

6.2.1 Getting Started

6.2.2 Structures of Protest Groups

6.2.2.1 Hierarchical Structure

6.2.2.1 Leaderless Groups

6.2.2.2 Team Structured Protest Groups

6.2.2.3 Pop-Up Protest Group Structures

6.2.2.4 Network Structures

6.2.2.5 De-Centralised Protest Structures

6.3 Knowledge is Power - The Strategic Importance of Information

6.3.1 Acquiring, Storing and Retrieving Data

6.3.2 Using Information to Undermine or Attack Authority

6.3.3 Frustrating Intelligence Gathering By Authority

6.4 The Strategic Power of Time and Place in Protest

Notes on Chapter 6

7. Planning Civil Rebellion

7.1 Analysis and Planning a Peaceful Protest

7.2 Defining an Offence. What is the Protest About?

7.3 Campaign Research - Gather ing Data and Defining Positions

7.3.1 Understanding Your Subject is Vital

7.3.1.1 Information as a Weapon of Protest - an Example

7.3.1.2 What Kinds of Research is Needed

7.3.2 Campaign Research

7.3.2.1 Issue-Based Research

7.3.2.2 Legal Implications:

7.3.2.3 Economic Issues

7.3.2.4 Environment Impacts

7.3.2.5 Social Implications

7.3.2.6 Unintended Consequences

7.3.2.7 Political Issues

7.3.3 Researching the Opposition

7.3.3.1 The History of an Authority or Company

7.3.3.2 The Legal History of an Authority or Company

7.3.3.3 History of Scandals

7.3.3.4 Known Associates

7.3.3.5 Personnel

7.3.3.6 PR History - Previous Public Statements

7.3.3.7 Sympathisers Within

7.3.3.8 Weaknesses

7.3.3.9 Security Systems

7.3.3.10 Communications

7.4 Defining Ideal Outcomes. What can be Realistically Achieved?

7.5 Planning Protests: Incentives and Disincentives

7.6 Risk Analysis and Management

7.7 Contingency Planning - Handling the Unexpected

7.8 Select the Methods to Satisfy each Objective

8. Methods of Civil Disobedience, Protest, Intervention and Direct Action

8.0 Civil Disobedience

8.1 Civil Disobedience: Economic Non-Cooperation - Boycotts

8.1.1 Consumer Actions

8.1.1.1 Consumers' Boycott

8.1.1.2 Secondary Consumer Boycotts

8.1.1.3 Withholding Rent - Rent Strikes

8.1.1.4 Refusal to Rent

8.1.1.5 Bill Payment Refusal

8.1.2 Action by Workers and Producers

8.1.2.1 Worker Boycott (of Materials, Tools, Customer):

8.1.2.2 Producer Boycott - Selling Strikes

8.1.2.3 Suppliers' and Handlers' Boycotts

8.1.2.4 Traders' Boycott

8.1.2.5 Retailers' General Strike

8.1.3 Boycott Actions by Holders of Financial Resources

8.1.3.1 Withdrawal of Bank Deposits / Shares

8.1.3.2 Disinvestment

8.1.3.3 Refusal to Pay Fees or Dues

8.1.3.4 Refusal to Pay Debts or Interest

8.1.3.5 Severance of Credit

8.1.3.6 Revenue Refusal - Tax Strike, Tax Evasion and Avoidance

8.1.3.7 Refusal of Government Money

8.1.3.8 Refusal to Let or Sell Property

8.2 Civil Disobedience: Economic Non-Cooperation - the Strike

8.2.1 Agricultural - Fishery Strikes

8.2.1.1 Small Farmers / Fishermen's Strike

8.2.1.2 Farm Workers Strike

8.2.1.3 Farm Producer Price Strike

8.2.2 Symbolic Strikes

8.2.2.1 Protest Strike

8.2.2.2 Lightening Strike - Walk Out

8.2.3 Restricted Strikes

8.2.3.1 Selective Strike

8.2.3.2 Slowdown Strike

8.2.3.3 Work-To-Rule

8.2.3.4 Strike by Resignation

8.2.3.5 Limited Strike

8.2.3.6 Sick Strike - Taking Sick Leave

8.2.3.7 Bumper Strike

8.2.3.8 Detailed Strike

8.2.4 Industrial Strikes

8.2.4.1 Establishment Strike

8.2.4.2 Industry Strike

8.2.4.3 Sympathetic Strike (aka Solidarity Action)

8.2.5 Specialist Strikes

8.2.5.1 Refusal of Impressed Labour

8.2.5.2 Prisoners' Strike

8.2.5.3 Craft Strike

8.2.5.4 Professionals' Strike

8.2.6 General Strikes and Economic Actions

8.2.6.1 Generalised Strike Multi-Industry

8.2.6.2 General Strike

8.2.6.3 Hartal - Suspension of Economic Life

8.2.6.4 Economic Shutdown:

8.3 Civil Disobedience: Methods Of Political Non-Cooperation

8.3.1 Rejection of Authority

8.3.1.1 Withholding or Withdrawal Of Allegiance

8.3.1.2 Refusal of Public Support

8.3.1.3 Literature and Speeches Advocating Resistance

8.3.2 Citizens' Non-Cooperation with Government

8.3.2.1 Boycott of Legislative Bodies

8.3.2.2 Boycott of Elections

8.3.2.3 Boycott of Government Employment and Positions

8.3.2.4 Boycott of Government Departments, Agencies and Other Bodies

8.3.2.5 Withdrawal from Government Educational Institutions

8.3.2.6 Boycott of Government-Supported Organisations

8.3.2.7 Refusal to Help Police

8.3.2.8 Removal of Own Identification Signs and Name

8.3.2.9 Refusal to Accept Appointed Officials

8.3.3 Citizens' Alternatives to Civil Obedience

8.3.3.1 Reluctant and Slow Compliance

8.3.3.2 Non-Obedience in Absence of Direct Supervision

8.3.3.3 Popular Disobedience

8.3.3.4 Disguised Disobedience

8.3.3.5 Refusal of an Assemblage or Meeting to Disperse

8.3.3.6 Sit-In

8.3.3.7 Non-Cooperation with Conscription

8.3.3.8 Non-Cooperation with Deportation

8.3.3.9 Hiding, Escape, and False Identities

8.3.3.10 Civil Disobedience of Illegitimate Laws

8.3.4 Action by Government Personnel

8.3.4.1 Selective Refusal of Assistance by Government Officials

8.3.4.2 Blocking of Lines of Command and Information

8.3.4.3 Stalling and Obstruction

8.3.4.4 General Administrative Non-Cooperation

8.3.4.5 Judicial Non-Cooperation

8.3.4.6 Deliberate Inefficiency and Selective Non-Cooperation by Police

8.3.4.7 Mutiny

8.3.4.8 Whistleblow ing

8.3.5 International Governmental Action

8.3.5.1 Changes in Diplomatic and Other Representations

8.3.5.2 Delay and Cancellation of Diplomatic Events

8.3.5.3 Withholding or Granting of Diplomatic Recognition

8.3.5.4 Severance of Diplomatic Relations

8.3.5.5 Withdrawal from International Organisations

8.3.5.6 Refusal of Membership in International Bodies

8.3.5.7 Expulsion from International Organisations

8.3.6 Domestic Governmental Action

8.3.6.1 Quasi-Legal Evasions and Delays

8.4 Civil Disobedience: Social Non-Cooperation

8.4.1 Ostracism of Persons

8.4.1.1 Social Boycott

8.4.1.2 Selective Social Boycott

8.4.1.3 Lysistratic Non-Action

8.4.1.4 Excommunication

8.4.1.5 Interdict

8.4.2 Withdrawal from t he Social System

8.4.2.1 Stay-At-Home

8.4.2.2 Total Personal Non-Cooperation

8.4.2.3 Flight of Workers

8.4.2.4 Sanctuary

8.4.2.5 Collective Disappearance

8.4.2.6 Protest Emigration (Hijrat)

8.4.2.7 Dirty Protest

8.4.3 Non-Cooperation with Social Events, Customs, and Institutions

8.4.3.1 Suspension of Social and Sports Activities

8.4.3.2 Boycott of Social Affairs

8.4.3.3 Student Strike

8.4.3.4 Social Disobedience

8.4.3.5 Withdrawal from Social Institutions

8.4.3.6 Academic Boycott

8.5 Protest and Persuasion

8.5.1 Group Presentations

8.5.1.1 Deputation

8.5.1.2 Mock Awards

8.5.1.3 Group Lobbying

8.5.1.4 Picketing

8.5.1.5 Mock Elections

8.5.2 Symbolic Public Acts

8.5.2.1 Displays of Flags and Symbolic Colours

8.5.2.2 Wearing of Symbols

8.5.2.3 Prayer and Worship

8.5.2.4 Delivering Symbolic Objects

8.5.2.5 Protest Disrobing (Aka Nude-Ins)

8.5.2.6 Destruction of Own Property

8.5.2.7 Symbolic Lights

8.5.2.8 Displays of Portraits

8.5.2.9 Paint as Protest

8.5.2.10 New Signs and Names - Culture Jamming

8.5.2.11 Symbolic Sounds

8.5.2.12 Symbolic Reclamations

8.5.2.13 Rude Gestures

8.5.3 Formal Statements

8.5.3.1 Public Speeches

8.5.3.2 Letters of Opposition or Support

8.5.3.3 Declarations by Organisations and Institutions

8.5.3.4 Signed Public Statements

8.5.3.5 Declarations of Indictment and Intention

8.5.3.6 Group or Mass Petitions

8.5.4 Addressing Wider Audiences

8.5.4.1 Slogans, Caricatures, and Symbols

8.5.4.2 Banners, Posters, and Displayed Communications

8.5.4.3 Leaflets, Pamphlets, and Books

8.5.4.4 Newspapers and Journals

8.5.4.5 Radio and Television

8.5.4.6 The Internet

8.5.4.7 Media-Jacking

8.5.5 Pressuring Individuals

8.5.5.1 Haunting Officials

8.5.5.2 Taunting Officials

8.5.5.3 Fraternisation

8.5.5.4 Vigils

8.5.6 Assemblies, Processions, Marches and Art

8.5.6.1 Assemblies of Protest or Support

8.5.6.2 Protest Meetings

8.5.6.3 Camouflaged Meetings of Protest

8.5.6.4 Teach-Ins

8.5.6.5 Marches and Parades

8.5.6.6 Pilgrimages

8.5.6.7 Motorcades

8.5.6.8 Humorous Skits and Pranks

8.5.6.9 Performances of Plays, Music and Singing

8.5.6.10 Political Mourning

8.5.6.11 Mock Funerals

8.5.6.12 Demonstrative Funerals

8.5.6.13 Homage at Burial Places

8.5.7 Withdrawal and Renunciation

8.5.7.1 Walk-Outs

8.5.7.2 Silence

8.5.7.3 Renouncing Honours

8.5.7.4 Turning One's Back

8.5.7.5 Counter-Demonstrations

8.6 Nonviolent Intervention

8.6.1 Psychological Intervention

8.6.1.1 Self-Exposure to The Elements

8.6.1.2 The Fast or Hunger Strike

8.6.1.3 Reverse Trial

8.6.1.4 Nonviolent Harassment

8.6.1.5 Culture Jamming - Détournement

8.6.1.6 Kill by Kindness

8.6.2 Physical Intervention

8.6.2.1 Sit-In, Stand-In, Ride-In, Wade-In, Pray-In

8.6.2.2 Nonviolent Raids

8.6.2.3 Nonviolent Air Raids

8.6.2.4 Nonviolent Invasion

8.6.2.5 Nonviolent Interjection

8.6.2.6 Nonviolent Obstruction (Blockade)

8.6.2.7 Nonviolent Occupation

8.6.2.8 Nonviolent Search and Seizure

8.6.3 Social Intervention

8.6.3.1 Establishing New Social Patterns

8.6.3.2 Overloading of Facilities (Aka Paralysing)

8.6.3.3 Stall-In

8.6.3.4 Speak-In (Aka Heckling)

8.6.3.5 Guerrilla Theatre

8.6.3.6 Alternative Social Institutions

8.6.3.7 Alternative Communication System

8.6.4 Economic Intervention

8.6.4.1 Reverse Strike (Work-In):

8.6.4.2 Stay-In Strike (Aka Occupation)

8.6.4.3 Nonviolent Land Seizure

8.6.4.4 Defiance of Blockades

8.6.4.5 Politically Motivated Counterfeiting

8.6.4.6 Preclusive Purchasing

8.6.4.7 Seizure of Assets

8.6.4.8 Dumping

8.6.4.9 Selective Patronage

8.6.4.10 Alternative Markets

8.6.4.11 Alternative Transportation Systems

8.6.4.12 Alternative Economic Institutions

8.6.4.13 Shareholder Rebellions

8.6.5 Political Intervention

8.6.5.1 Overloading of Administrative Systems

8.6.5.2 Disclosing Identities of Secret Agents

8.6.5.3 Seeking Imprisonment

8.6.5.4 Civil Disobedience of Neutral Laws

8.6.5.5 Work-On Without Collaboration

8.6.5.6 Dual Sovereignty and Parallel Government

8.6.5.7 Filibuster

8.6.5.8 Electoral Candidate Pranks

8.6.5.9 Kiss of Death

8.6.5.10 Strategic Voting

8.6.6 Legal Intervention

8.6.6.1 National Complaints

8.6.6.2 Complaints to International Authorities and Courts

8.6.6.3 Petition Higher Parliaments

8.6.6.4 Citizen's Arrest

8.7 Direct Action

8.7.1 Sabotage

8.7.1.1 Sabotage by Destruction of Property

8.7.1.2 Sabotage by Subversion

8.7.1.3 Sabotage by Disruption

8.7.1.4 Sabotage by Obstruction

8.7.2 Cyber Actions

8.7.2.1 Bypassing Internet Surveillance

8.7.2.2 Security

8.7.2.3 Cyber Sabotage

8.7.2.4 Hacking Systems

8.7.2.5 Social Media and Communications

8.7.2.6 E-Campaigning (Internet Activism)

8.7.3 Betrayal and Leaking

8.7.3.1 Briefing the Press

8.7.3.2 Leaking Secret Documents

8.7.3.3 Betraying Personal Information about Authority Members

8.7.3.4 Betraying Financial Information about an Authority

8.7.3.5 Leaking Incriminating Information

8.7.3.6 The Deadman's Switch

8.7.4 Subversion of Authority

8.7.4.1 Infiltration of Political Parties

8.7.4.2 Creation of Front Groups

8.7.4.3 Infiltration of the Military

8.7.4.4 Infiltration of the Police

8.7.4.5 Infiltration of the Organs of the State (Civil Service):

8.7.4.6 Infiltration of Non-Government Organisation s

8.7.4.7 Infiltration of Parliamentary Membership

8.7.4.8 Generating Civil Unrest through Boycotts, Demonstrations, Strikes

8.7.4.9 Spreading Rumours and Lies

8.7.4.10 Blackmail and Scandals

8.7.4.11 Bribery and Persuasion

8.7.4.12 Creating and Encouraging Political Disunity

8.7.4.13 Political Seduction

8.7.4.14 Social Seduction

8.7.4.15 Infiltration of Public Meetings

8.7.4.16 Agent Provocateur

8.7.5 Espionage and Intelligence Gathering

8.7.5.1 Intelligence Gathering

8.7.5.2 Commercial Espionage

8.7.5.3 Government Espionage

8.7.5.4 Counterintelligence

8.7.5.5 Internal Security

8.7.6 Diversion

8.7.6.1 Identity Correction

8.7.6.2 Deconstruction

8.7.6.3 Disinformation

8.7.6.4 Mock Attack

Notes on Chapter 8

9. T h e Future of Civil Rebellion

Glossary of Terms

About the Author and Editor

Preface

---

What do we think when we hear the words Civil Disobedience? Perhaps we imagine a passive, seated Mahatma Gandhi, surrounded by his supporters in an act of nonviolent protest against British rule in India . Or maybe we think of some huge student sit-in against yet another government incursion into civil liberties, or perhaps an unauthorised public demo outside parliament of citizens protesting against an unpopular political decision, such as a war, for example.

All of these are indeed manifestations of civil disobedience in action. But these images of grand, large-scale actions belie the fact that civil disobedience is much more subtle and widespread than we imagine. It is certainly not confined to big collective acts of revolt or protest. In fact, civil disobedience is actually a very pervasive form of human behaviour which is employed whenever a citizen is confronted by acts of unreasonable authority. Indeed, civil disobedience is by far the most popular, most direct and least violent means of bringing about social and political change. There are good reasons for this.

Firstly, civil disobedience is not just confined to use by organised political or social movements such as unions or political groups. It is a strategy that is available to all of us, as individuals, or in groups, acting alone or collaboratively. It is also often considered to carry a high personal risk but, in reality, there are many ways in which acts of civil disobedience can be carried out covertly without personal danger. Thus it is a technique of political change within everyone's grasp.

Secondly, civil disobedience is not just a tool of defiance or rebellion against government. It may be equally useful against any form of authority, including business and even public opinion. Civil disobedience is essentially a refusal to conform. This refusal to conform may be aimed at laws, regulations, orders, social norms, demands or expectations imposed on any individual or group by any other external individual or group. So we can widen our understanding of the targets of civil disobedience to be almost any member of society with authority, ranging from a primary school headmaster, through the board of directors of a multi-national corporation all the way to government or military powers.

Despite common preconceptions, civil disobedience need not involve large-scale actions. Indeed, much of the most effective civil disobedience consists of small-scale acts by relatively powerless individuals. One only needs to look at the history of resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe, or the last years of the occupation of Ireland by the British to see how corrosive many small protest actions can be on an authority's ability to govern. Indeed, Jonathan Swift's allegorical Lilliputian depiction of the power of many small people acting in unison is an old reminder of how a big, powerful institution (or person) can be effectively tied down by the little people when they work together.

Civil disobedience knows no political or social boundaries. It is not confined to our Western liberal democracies nor is it only used against obviously oppressive regimes elsewhere in the world. Certainly, the opportunity for large-scale civil disobedience is much greater in the liberal environments of Western society, but even in most totalitarian societies every citizen retains some scope for acts of civil disobedience to confound and challenge a repressive regime.

Finally, civil disobedience is not necessarily a passive or defensive act, a simple refusal to conform. Rather, it is very often an active response or revolt against authority. It may even be pro-active rather than reactive and it can employ methods which actively damage the interests of the authority against which it is aimed. It might resort to acts of political violence.

So, why is civil disobedience important, especially in the present day?

Ironically, despite the advances of the last centuries in human freedoms and the spread of humanism as a common moral basis, we can see that the powers of authoritarianism have certainly not waned with improved affluence. If anything, these authoritarian tendencies are more potent today than they have been at any time since the Industrial Revolution.

These days, in the Western world, authority is patently less brutish or obvious than it was in the past; the authoritarians have wrapped themselves in the cloak of public security, political stability and economic well-being to operate under the pseudo-democratic justification of protection of the public for the greater good. The use of mass communication techniques, political manipulation and fear are the new tools of modern oppression rather than the rifle butt, the dungeon or the torture rack of former days. Nonetheless, we now know that Western governments still engage in kidnap and physical torture against their political adversaries, though normally they do this in some backward foreign land far from the stares of their cosy electorates.

Alongside the modernisation of authoritarian techniques of government there has also been a morphing of authoritarianism in Western society as capital and government merge into a single vector of power. Authorities such as government and big capital now collaborate in powerful coalitions of intertwined political and commercial self-interest. The infamous revolving door system makes a mockery of concepts of political integrity and public service. Our political leaders work for their capitalist clients and these same capitalist clients support our politicians with funds and well-paid jobs. And so, the relationship between business and government has made the two almost indistinguishable in terms of their objectives, which is, in a nutshell, the acquisition of money and power by powerful elites. It is a perfect storm of political, economic and social corruption that permeates virtually all established political parties and all corporate entities. It's not surprising the general public has become cyn ical about democratic politics.

D espite very real improvements in living conditions in the last century, our world has not become a more just or equitable place. We now inhabit societies in which huge sectors of our population are in some way dispossessed. Many of the world's citizens suffer racial, sexual, religious discrimination, even in the liberal West. Billions live in or close to poverty whilst our governments wage wars which we, ordinary citizens, mostly don't want. We are taxed both to finance arms we don't need or want and to finance corrupt relationships with big business. We are forced into debt by our governments and corporate interests simply in order to have a roof over our heads. Our governments spy on us, exploit our labour and try to keep us and our children ignorant, whilst perpetuating a system of privilege and exclusion for themselves. The moneyed elites control the majority of land, capital, political power and the best job opportunities whilst the common folk are left with the crumbs, bound to a life of debt and tedium with few opportunities to escape.

Plainly, many of us in the Western world live sufficiently comfortable lives that we are rarely afflicted by many of the more extreme cases of poverty, discrimination or other forms of repression. However, even though we are encouraged to be politically apathetic by the authoritarian elements of our governments, in our more cosseted lives we are gradually becoming more and more controlled. Our freedoms are daily more curtailed as the moderate Western middle-classes are increasingly being confronted by a rising and alarmingly authoritarian political class. Simultaneously, the opportunities to escape poverty are being limited as our modern political and capitalist systems concentrate wealth in the hands of increasingly small numbers of super-rich elite.

Fault lines are clearly visible in the relationship between citizen and government and corporate authority even in our rich Western societies. For example, the rise of middle-class protest movements (such as Occupy) willing to take on big government and big corporations is a completely new phenomenon of the last decade and they have had some spectacular successes. Also, we see the voting patterns in Western democracies reflect a discontented populace with turnout numbers at unprecedented low levels, revealing an overall loss of public confidence in the democratic process and the conventional political parties. Once solid, two party democracies are now splintering as new political parties rise from popular protest movements and start to challenge the old monolithic political parties. Things are changing.

There are several tangible reasons for this increasingly general discontent. The public has become more demanding, and now has much higher expectations of political and government institutions and from public figures than ever before. The public has also become politically cynical and no longer automatically trusts political or business leaders as they would have done in the past. Alongside this public distrust the merging of political and commercial interests (aka corruption) has set off alarm bells. This further exacerbates the lack of trust, as the perception of politicians and businesses as self-serving, manipulative and devious schemers is reinforced in the public psyche. The public no longer see politicians as their protectors against the excesses of capitalism but rather as just another wing of the same dubious profiteering elite.

The concept of liars, damn liars and politicians has probably never been more widespread than it is now. Simultaneously the public is crying out for more political transparency and greater personal freedoms, yet our politicians seem hell-bent on removing more and more civil liberties and human rights using all kinds of fear-inducing stratagems against us. And so the public is becoming increasingly frustrated by what it sees as a power-hungry political class that cares nothing for the people. We are fed up of successive governments that will not listen to us, and that are incapable of telling the truth or sticking to a promise and we are angry with institutions that dehumanise and abuse us.

Throughout human history the frustration of a disenfranchised citizenry has always resulted in some kind of public reaction. In the best case this reaction takes the form of civil disobedience. In more extreme cases, it results in bloody revolution or what modern politicians prefer to call terrorism. The two reactions are simply opposite ends of the same spectrum of the inevitable human reaction to unacceptable oppression. And this brings us directly to the subject of civil disobedience and its role in human society.

Civil disobedience is a potent weapon in the hands of those who understand how to use it. It has brought down governments, even empires, overturned despots, won great civil and human rights victories, driven the engine of human development and brought dignity and power to the peoples of the world. Equally, civil disobedience has been used in pursuit of quite modest ambitions, such as the defence of consumer rights or improving local government services. It is completely multi-purpose. But despite its long and honourable history, the technique of civil disobedience is still under-used and misunderstood by most of us. Many of us live under the illusion that it is not for the likes of us, or that we can't change things anyway, or we are just ordinary people, powerless, or that it is too dangerous to try. None of these preconceptions are actually true.

Carefully planned acts of civil disobedience can be fantastically direct and effective and can be carried out by virtually any citizen or group with a minimal amount of personal risk or cost and the maximum amount of benefit.

In the face of an increasingly disillusioned electorate, corrupt political classes and failing democratic system, civil disobedience is now beginning to replace the ballot as a means by which the ordinary citizen can bring about direct political change.

This book is going to explain just exactly how civil disobedience works and how it can and should be used to manage, control, frustrate and in some cases overturn authoritarian societies and the political elites that seek to control us.

---o0o---

1. The Relationship between Citizen, Authority and Civil Rebellion

---

The political systems which determine the relationship between citizen and authority vary enormously. In different times and places citizens have lived in egalitarian tribes, ancient and modern democracies, militaristic or totalitarian regimes, feudal fiefdoms and constitutional monarchies. For all kinds of geographical and economic reasons, the evolution of global political systems of government has shown an amazing diversity since the beginnings of civilisation. Despite this extraordinary variety, the problems of citizens in relation to their governing authorities have shown a remarkable similarity, namely the behaviour of their rulers when they gain power. It is as if the act of becoming part of a political authority transforms our leaders into conniving, brutal, self-serving autocrats, putting them into instant conflict with the interests of their citizens.

Neither the passage of time nor the invention of new political systems seems to have done anything to remedy this. The corrupting influence of power is alive and well and at work in every authority in the world. Within living memory, indeed at this very moment, we have regimes that support some of the very worst abuses of human and civil rights, that wage illegal wars, openly commit crimes against humanity and justify their own war crimes as being in the interests of national security. We see governments that openly repress their own people with acts of arbitrary coercion and detention. We have so-called modern Western democracies that happily tolerate political corruption, discrimination, censorship, kidnap and torture in their own societies and that of any nation they care to declare war on or define as terrorists. We now have government authorities expressly operating in the interests of large capital and against the interests of their own citizens and doing this for the personal monetary gain of a handful of political cronies.

The relationship between citizen and authority has never been without its problems, but it seems that, rather than evolving more refined and harmonious systems of government, our political evolution has stalled. Our political classes now seem more intent on using their power for personal gain than in protecting the interests of the greater good. The Climate Change debate is a case in point. We have wasted almost 20 years because the climate change deniers in the pay of big business have dragged down important CO2-reduction initiatives. Why? They did this simply to prop up the interests of Big Oil and to line their own pockets. This is just one of a long litany of appalling examples of the duplicity and lack of integrity of our political and corporate leaders.

Clearly, in some forms of regime, such as a one party state, one may argue that there is little room for choice in political leadership. But the problem is that these conflicts between the interest of the citizens and their governing authority also exist in sophisticated multi-party democracies. It could be argued that in a democracy these conflicts are even worse than those in a totalitarian regime because a citizen's expectations for good governance and consequent disappointment are so much greater in a democracy. In an authoritarian state such as Burma , the citizen doesn't expect much in terms of freedom and it's taken as read that the country's leaders are stealing from the state coffers. In a democracy we expect some honesty and transparency. The problem is that we aren't getting either.

In many modern democratic regimes it seems that the relationship between citizen and authority has degenerated into mutual disrespect and continuous conflict. The authority seems to be in a constant struggle to control and bully the citizen, who reacts by evading, ducking and weaving the authoritarian ambitions of the government. In such an atmosphere there is no place for consensus or productive dialogue, only wasteful political chicanery, mutual suspicion and distrust.

The citizens in both political structures, democratic and authoritarian, feel disenfranchised by lack of trustworthy politicians, a fair political landscape, by a sense that no-one is protecting their interests or cares about the greater good. This creates a breakdown in the basic social contract between citizen and government, which further alienates both parties. It is at this point of realisation that the citizen becomes inventive and turns to nonviolent civil rebellion as a means of exerting political influence on an authority's decision-making. Civil disobedience and protest are aimed at authority as a counter-measure to state coercion imposed on the citizen by government. In the absence of persuasion or a properly functioning political system for dialogue, it is all that is left to the citizen, bar bloody insurrection.

In the following sections we will examine the basic mechanisms that cause conflicts between a civil population and an authority in terms of human needs and why peaceful civil rebellion is an important part of our relationship with authority.

1.1 Human Needs and our Relationship with Authority

When all human needs are entirely satisfied, it is most unlikely that a civil population will find itself in conflict with its authorities. This utopian scenario would involve our leaders creating a safe, comfortable environment where all are well-fed, respected, educated, creative, economically satisfied, all have friends, family, love and feel entirely content. Sadly, very few authorities in the world are even attempting to build such a world for their subjects and indeed, conflicts between authority and civil populations continue throughout the planet. Many of these disputes can be traced directly to the trampling of human needs by authorities.

1.1.1 What are Human Needs? An Introduction to Maslow

Maslow was a 20th century psychologist who proposed a theory of psychological health based on a hierarchy of human needs. His theory elaborated on the fulfilment of human needs according to priorities, beginning with basics such as food, water, and breathing, rising to needs such as physical security, self-esteem etc. and culminating in what he called self-actualization. In Maslow's theory, a higher need such as the respect of others could not be satisfied unless more fundamental needs lower in the hierarchy had been satisfied first. Thus, a pressing need would have to be gratified before attention could be turned to needs higher in the hierarchy. The following diagram shows the relationship between these needs:

Level 1: Physiological Needs

Physiological needs are those required to sustain life, such as:

• Air

• Water

• Food

• Sleep

According to Maslow, if these fundamental needs are not fulfilled, then one will surely be motivated to satisfy them. Higher aspirations such as social needs and esteem are not recognized until one first satisfies those needs which are most basic to physical existence.

Level 2: Safety Needs

Once physiological needs are met, one's attention turns to safety and security in order to be free from the threat of physical and emotional harm. These two steps are important to the physical survival of the person. Once individuals have basic nutrition, shelter and safety, they can attempt to accomplish more.

Such needs might be fulfilled by:

• Living in a safe, permanent place

• Having medical insurance

• Having job security

• Having economic reserves

Level 3: Social Needs

Once a person has met the lower level physiological and safety needs, higher level motivators are awakened. The first of the higher level needs are social, i.e. related to our needs when interacting with others. This can be referred to as Love and Belonging. These are psychological needs that become relevant when individuals have taken care of themselves physically and are then ready to share themselves with others, such as with family and friends. These needs may include:

• Friendship

• Belonging to a group

• Giving and receiving love

Level 4: Esteem Needs

After a person feels that they belong, the urge to attain a degree of importance emerges. The fourth level is achieved when individuals feel comfortable with what they have accomplished. This is the Esteem level, the need to be competent and recognized, such as through status and a degree of success. Esteem needs can be categorized as external motivators and internal motivators. Internally motivating esteem needs are those such as self-esteem, accomplishment, and self-respect. External esteem needs are those such as reputation and recognition. Some examples of esteem needs are:

• Recognition by colleagues / friends / family

• Attention, i.e. being considered by others

• Social Status

• Accomplishment

• Self-respect

Level 5: Cognitive needs

Although not in the original theory, Maslow later improved his model to add a layer in between self-actualization and esteem needs: the need for aesthetics and knowledge: and he referred to these as cognitive needs, where individuals need to intellectually stimulate themselves and explore. This is the Aesthetic level, which is the need for harmony, order, knowledge and beauty. These needs include:

• Knowledge

• Meaning

• Aesthetics

• Self-awareness

Level 6: Self-Actualization

Self-actualization is the summit of Maslow's motivation theory. It is about the goal of reaching one's full potential as a person. Unlike lower level needs, this need is never fully satisfied; as one grows psychologically there are always new opportunities to continue to develop. Self-actualized persons have frequent occurrences of peak experiences, which are moments of profound happiness, understanding and harmony. According to Maslow, only a small percentage of the population reaches this level of self-actualization. Self-actualized people tend to have motivators such as:

• Truth

• Justice

• Wisdom

• Meaning

1.1.2 Human Needs and Civil Rebellion:

The first four (lowest) levels of the hierarchy of human needs are known as Deficit needs or D-needs. This means that if you do not sufficiently satisfy any one of those four levels of need, you will feel a compulsion to deal with whatever is stopping you from satisfying these needs, but, once achieved, you feel content. These needs alone are not motivators, but unless fulfilled, the person will feel discontented until they are met. Anything which threatens the fulfilment of these deficit needs may trigger dissatisfaction, fear and/or anger.

Maslow wrote that there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled in order for basic needs to be satisfied. For example, freedom of speech, freedom to express oneself, and freedom to seek new information are a few of the prerequisites. Prevention of any of these freedoms can result in the failure of gratification of one or more basic needs. It is in this respect that we can see the clear relationship between failures to satisfy human needs and the incidence and strength of civil rebellion. One way or another all civil rebellions stem from a society's failure to satisfy one or more human needs in one or more of its citizens. When an authority accidentally or deliberately blocks the satisfaction of human needs, the victim(s) will eventually target the authority and attempt to force an authority to step aside.

Reactions to threats: In general, we can say that the severity of reaction of a civil population to having some of its basic needs thwarted is dependent on how profound the need is. If level 1 needs are unsatisfied, such as when a group is deprived of physiological essentials like food or water, then this may well trigger a powerful and violent reaction, as it did in the case of the French and Russian Revolutions, where millions were on the brink of starvation. Less profound deprivations such as unsatisfied aesthetic needs are unlikely to lead to bloody revolution, but they may over time, for instance, turn into street demonstrations by students denied access to education. We can refer to the threat to satisfy a level 1 need as a level 1 threat and so on.

Threats to the future: The relationship between human needs and threats can also be projected into the future. For instance, environmental damage caused by an authority may be seen as endangering the future safety and security of our children or grandchildren, and so climate change, for instance, may be seen as level 1 or level 2 threats. GM technology and intensive agriculture may be perceived as a level 1 threat that will happen at some time in the near future. A planned development damaging the countryside offends our aesthetic senses and may be seen as a future level 6 threat.

Of course, not all threats to human needs are the same because the danger may not last very long and our basic needs may be only partially disrupted. For instance, a development may call for a forest to be felled. However, the forest may be replanted in an act of mitigation. In such a case the threat is later mitigated so that whilst an aesthetic need may be somewhat offended, it will be only temporary and the situation may become tolerable again after some time. Thus, not all threats to our basic needs end in civil rebellion. Most, in fact, do not.

1.2 Why is Peaceful Civil Rebellion Important?

We live in an imperfect world. Even modern democracy, whilst promising citizen participation in government, rarely delivers. Somewhere between the ideals of public consultation and the reality of public administration are insurmountable obstacles which make democracy an imperfect system of political representation. It may be the best we have, but it is riddled with weaknesses. Perhaps the Swiss system of continuous referenda offers a partial solution to some of the problems of citizen participation in government. But aside from the practical design faults in our democratic political systems, we are primarily stuck with the problem that power, however it is obtained, is corrupting. Good, decent politicians become corrupted, even whilst trying to do the right thing for their constituents. Meanwhile, bad politicians find democracies fertile places to line their pockets and manipulate the electoral system and their voters for personal gain.

This is the world of the democratic deficit, where our politicians fall short of fulfilling the basic principles of democracy and integrity and where there exists a state of mutual distrust and antagonism between the ruler and the ruled.

In non-democratic systems the relationship between authority and its subjects is seen in even starker contrast. In authoritarian states, governments don't need to fret over problems such as the democratic deficit. The distrust and antagonism between an authority and its people and vice-versa are just a part of the status quo. In either case, communication between a civil population and a ruling authority becomes awkward or impossible. In authoritarian states, protest thus becomes the last resort of a frustrated and voiceless population struggling to express its opinions, hoping that someone out there will hear and help them.

In democratic societies, the sad reality is that few citizens have much faith in their political classes or their governments. This is where civil rebellion becomes relevant as a means of communication (by megaphone) between the electorate and their elected representatives in government. In many Western democracies, the relationship between government and people is so poor that the only means of interaction between the electorate and their governing authority is either at the ballot box every few years or as a target of protest. Protest has become the nearest thing that modern Western democracy has to real dialogue or staging referenda as in Switzerland .

1.2.1 Civil rights and Responsibilities within a Social Contract

In the traditional model of the social contract the rights and responsibilities of the citizen and a governing authority are defined. The role of the civil population is to be law-abiding and supportive of their government. The role of the civil authority is to make and keep fair laws, using the forces of coercion and state violence in the best interests of the civil population.

Any breach of this symbiosis creates a breach of the social contract. It could be a minor infraction or maybe a major breach of trust between the government and the governed. All systems of government embody some sense of this social contract. Authoritarian governments, feudalism, tribalism and modern democracies all embody a social contract which is, to a greater or lesser degree, acceptable to its subjects. However, sometimes social contracts are seen as unfair or one-sided and they become unacceptable (usually to the civil population). This may trigger acts of civil rebellion.

1.2.2 Authoritarianism, Civil Order and Civil Rebellion

In the authoritarian model, the maintenance of civil order is carried out using a mixture of coercion and violence. Democratic states may also resort to authoritarian measures in a misguided attempt to maintain civil order and control. As we will discuss at a later stage, the usual response to this strategy by a disgruntled population is an escalation of civil rebellion. Thus, acts of civil rebellion may begin with civil disobedience, escalating into acts of direct action, and, at times, it may spill over into violent insurrection in cases where an authority becomes violently repressive.

1.2.3 Civil power: The Balance between Social Contract and Social Conflict

Breaches in the perceived social contract trigger social conflict. Small breaches trigger small conflicts. A large infraction may trigger a revolution. Between minor incidents and full scale insurrection there is the spectrum of civil rebellion.

When a civil population has decided to challenge an authority, there is a clear correlation between the level of authoritarian abuse and the severity of popular rebellion. As governments become more unreasonable, civil rebellion becomes more focused and radical. As governments react more emotionally to popular dissent, protest movements become more organised. As governments become more violent, dissenters become more militant.

Often (unfortunately) governments move seamlessly across the red line which turns a protesting civil population into an angry stone throwing mob, and onwards to a full-scaled armed insurgency. There are so many historical examples, where a simple dispute between a rebelling population and an authority could have been easily resolved, but where the authority, for reasons of principle, felt the need to make an example of the rebels and ended up having a full-scale violent rebellion on their hands.

The balance between social contract and social conflict is a complex one. As we will discuss in the section on Fight and Flight and the catastrophic relationship between fear and anger, a population may well tolerate a great deal of social injustice and continuous breaches in the perceived social contract with an authority before it suddenly snaps and decides to attack the authority. At a certain moment a population's fear will suddenly and radically turn to aggression. At this point, it is very difficult for an authority to negotiate a way back to any form of stable social contract, because the population's relationship with authority has ruptured. Things have gone too far.

The emotional transition through the cusp between fear and fight alters everything in the relationship between authority and subject. Oppressed populations cease feeling oppressed, they become combative. They cease to care about another beating, they are punch drunk. Their fear of their oppressor is gone. They move into a mode which may be a fight to the death.

It's a natural enough reaction. Surely, all of us would fight for our very existence and that of our families if we were so badly oppressed. For instance, if we look at the history of the Palestinian people, in the last 50 years they have been successively ignored, abused, bombed, repressed, ghettoised, vilified as terrorists and exiled in their millions from their own country. Unsurprisingly, the Palestinians have moved beyond fear into aggressive self-defence because they have literally nothing to lose. They stand, as did European Jewry during WWII, on the brink of extinction. All they can do now is fight.

In less dramatic cases of civil conflict, groups of rational, moderate, middle-class citizens may feel obliged to take up more radical, politically-mobilised positions. They may even become disobedient demonstrators when an authority pushes them beyond the cusp of fear of authority into the new region of dissent and protest.

The social landscape which connects authoritarian oppression with bloody revolution is exactly the same one which connects political corruption, discrimination or deceit with popular civil rebellion. The connections resonate, only differentiated by the degree of misuse of power by an authority. Authorities that ignore this fact do so at their own peril.

Notes on Chapter 1

Note 1: Luttwak, Edward (1979). Coup d'état: A Practical Handbook. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-17547-1. OCLC 5171600.

---o0o---

2. Concepts of Civil Rebellion

---

2.1 Towards a Definition of Peaceful Civil Rebellion

There are few people in the world that actively seek violent rebellion if there is a peaceful alternative. It is a sad fact that crass, authoritarian governments that refuse to listen to their people, or vainglorious leaders who run their governments on the basis of some hubristic fantasies are the main incubators of violent rebellion and terrorism. Even US President Obama admitted as much, in 2015, with reference to the relationship between terrorism and misguided US foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere [Note 36].

Aside from this world of global power games, most people really just want to lead a decent, peaceful life. Unfortunately, this highly reasonable ambition is not always possible, simply because someone else in government or business has a different agenda. That doesn't mean that most people want to launch a full-scale militarised revolution every time they don't get what they want. On the contrary, most people are extremely patient and will try to resolve a problem by themselves, with the minimum of fuss or force. But there are limits to this tolerance and at a certain moment a civil population will begin to rebel against a civil authority or corporate management. It may begin with small acts of civil disobedience by individuals and, if the causes are not addressed by the authority, it will escalate into more open and organised protest. Protesters will then attempt to intervene in the situation themselves and this will be followed by more aggressive direct actions.

A wise authority should see peaceful civil rebellion as a sign that preventive action and negotiations are needed to avoid escalation. It's not the time for sending out the riot police, the knee-jerk reaction by most governments when they feel challenged by a protest group. The same shrewd government should see peaceful protest as a safety valve and an indirect route to dialogue with the civil population. This is because, whilst some protests may be inconvenient or embarrassing to an authority, they are a great deal less inconvenient than a full-scale bloody insurrection. Sadly, the British government wasn't astute enough to see this on the morning of Bloody Sunday, when it opened fire on unarmed protesters and, by doing so, opened a Pandora's Box of 30 years of armed insurrection in Ireland .

So, what defines peaceful civil rebellion? What can it achieve? How successful is it? The political philosopher Gene Sharp defined it as follows: Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social, psychological, economic, and political means without the threat or use of violence. It includes acts of omission, acts of commission, or a combination of both [Note 38].

Peaceful civil rebellion or nonviolent resistance are interchangeable terms for the same collection of strategies and techniques that can be used by a citizen or a group of citizens to challenge authority. The method of challenge has a wide application. It has been successfully employed in minor disputes between workers and their management, and all the way up to toppling a government or ejecting a colonial power.

The historical record indicates that nonviolent campaigns of civil rebellion have been more successful than armed campaigns in achieving the goals of political struggles, even when used against similar opponents and in the face of repression. Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to win legitimacy, attract widespread domestic and international support, neutralise the opponent's security forces, and compel loyalty shifts among erstwhile opponent supporters than are armed campaigns. Armed campaigns tend to attract the active support of a relatively small number of people. Violent protest also gives authorities a justification for violent counterattacks and violence is much less likely to prompt loyalty shifts and defections by ot her members of the public or those in an authority.

For all these reasons, peaceful civil rebellion is certainly the preferred route to achieving a successful end to a conflict with an authority. As Sun Tzu, the author of The Art of War, noted: A good general doesn't seek victory in battle, he seeks victory without battle. Nonetheless, the hint of a threat of violence may also act as a powerful persuasive catalyst in bringing a reluctant authority to the negotiating table. There are some people who believe that Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun and a threat of escalation may persuade authorities of the wisdom of seeking a peaceful solution. Sadly, if they ignore this, violent escalation may well follow.

2.2 Reasons for Civil Rebellion

There are many specific causes for civil rebellion, but they all fall into one of the following categories of maladministration by a government or corporate authority, causing the relationship between government and the governed to descend to the point where civil disobedience becomes inevitable:

• The abuse of power - the deliberate misuse of power by those in authority. The government (or management) becomes excessively oppressive towards its citizens or subordinates, to the point where this behaviour triggers one or more defiant and undesirable responses from the population, sometimes as part of a strategy of self-defence.

• Negligence and hubris of authority - the dereliction of duty by those in authority or a disconnection from reality by an authority. The government's (or management's) lack of concern for its citizens or subordinates inexorably leads to the point where the population feel obliged to use unorthodox means to attract their government's attention to their cause, or to unseat and replace their government or management.

• Lack of ethics in government - the exercise of authority without ethical considerations.

2.2.1 The Abuse of Power

One of the most common motivations for acts of civil disobedience is the abuse of power by those who have control over various aspects of our lives.

The abuse of power is the commission of immoral or unlawful acts by those holding political or administrative positions of authority. It ranges from a single abusive act by an individual official or politician right through to the institutionalised misuse of power by an entire government. The abuse may be minor, such as being partial to a particular sector of society, but it can range up to the active genocide of entire groups of citizens. It may be carried out for the personal gain of an individual, or it may be motivated by the political ambitions of a whole political party or other group, such as a religious faction.

Who are the main abusers of power? All organisations, large or small, are capable of impropriety in some way, but generally the sources of serious abuse and oppression come down to three basic groups:

• Governments and their agencies

• Corporate entities

• Organised religions

The phrase abuse of power is normally applied to malfeasance in government, but many forms of abuse of power are also found in corporations. Abuse of power may be aimed at a country's own citizens or it may be directed at others abroad. Equally in a corporate context, the abuses may hurt a company's employees or persons entirely outside the company, such as suppliers or customers.

Politically, the abuse of power is a characteristic of fascist political ideology. In this mindset, the powerful achieve their authoritarian goals by whatever means are necessary in order to dominate more vulnerable members of society. It is the logical extension of the concept that those with power are morally entitled to wield that power as they see fit over those that are weak.

The exercise of power and authority in the interests of the greater good is a socialist or communalist principle, and the complete antithesis of right-wing mentality, which exhorts the supremacy of powerful, authoritarian elites as their highest priority. This is not to suggest that abuses of power are confined to extreme right-wing regimes. This is not the case. What can be said is that power is a corrupting tendency of all authorities, whether left or right-wing. The prime difference is that the ethics of left-wing philosophy define the abuse of power as immoral and unjust, whereas right-wing politicians see it as an extension of their traditional right to rule. To illustrate this, one only needs to look at any Western democracy and make a numeric comparison of corruption cases against right-wing as opposed to left-wing politicians. Right-wing governments and parties dominate the race to be the most corrupt and abusive by an order of magnitude over their fairly innocent left-wing colleagues.

The abuse of power and civil rebellion: All authorities are guilty of some abuse of power. The nature of power is that it tends to corrupt those who hold it, and the temptation to use authority as a means to satisfy another agenda can be irresistible. However, not all misuses of power trigger off civil rebellion and some misapplications of power can go largely ignored. There are two factors which determine whether a misappropriation of power will trigger off a civil rebellion:

• Severity of the abuse

• Impact of the abuse: Direct or Indirect

Severity of abuse: Minor acts of abuse of power, such as special privileges for politicians or directors, might be annoying, but rarely trigger off a strong reaction. However, rounding up all the young men in a particular district and keeping them in prison for several years without trial will certainly initiate a strong and probably violent backlash!

Impact of the abuse: Direct or Indirect: Some forms of exploitation of power directly impact and hurt people. Suppressing free speech or acts of collective punishment affront and, in some cases, physically hurt their victims. Political corruption which puts money in a politician's wallet hurts the public, but does so indirectly. The same can be said for illegal surveillance. However shocking it may be, it doesn't have any tangible or immediate effect on its victims.

Modes of abuse: Some important characteristics and styles of abuse are:

• Overt abuse: Blatant abuse of power that is plain for all to see.

• Covert (or controlling) abuse: An abusive authority seeks to maintain control without the abuse being recognised.

• Dehumanisation and objectification: This often involves strategies designed to dehumanise victims by referring to them as if they were objects. The intention is to limit public sympathy or support for the victims.

• Unpredictability: Unforeseeable abuses of power make it difficult for a victim to manage the abuser.

• Abuse of information: The authority's control of information means that it can use information for its own benefit.

• Control by proxy: Abusive authorities often act via a proxy. The police may get the blame for the brutality on the streets, but who actually ordered it?

• Ambient abuse (also known as gas lighting): This is the misuse of power to manipulate and deliberately twist and misrepresent a victim's words or position.

Who are the main targets of the abuse of power? The targets may be single individuals, small groups or entire populations. For example, many corporate entities abuse their customers, or target union members for persecution.

Governments or other authorities often zero in on minorities that they wish to demonise or marginalise, such as immigrants, the unemployed, people of particular sexual orientation, religious minorities, the poor, the disabled, the young, the old, even the fat and the thin! The range of targets for abuse is almost endless, limited only by the perversity of political agendas.

Trigger mechanisms and abuses of power: Mild indirect forms of abuse of power rarely trigger off civil rebellion. Such abuses are usually tolerated in order to keep the peace. Conversely, civil rebellion tends to be triggered by violent, intolerable direct assaults on individuals or groups.

However, o n ce a civil rebellion begins , it becomes somewhat like a snowball rolling down a hill, gathering momentum and size as it hurtles downwards. It tends to mop up all other outstanding offences, however minor or indirect, that the authority has been guilty of in the past. In practice, once a victim has passed the point of tolerance, every little abusive act in the past, every unethical decision and every negligent action by an authority is cited as proof of their guilt.

The relationship between abuse and civil rebellion: History teaches us that human reactions to abuse or repression very much conform to the concepts of Newton 's Third Law of Dynamics, which states that For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction . The severity of civil rebellion tends to match the harshness of the abuse of power. This rule works all the way to violent insurgency when a civilian population has to defend itself against a severely abusive authority attempting to destroy it.

For instance, the Christian Reformation began as an act of fairly peaceful civil disobedience. The church's initial abuses of power resulted in certain peaceful protests to the Vatican by priests and monks. Luther began by criticising the relatively recent practice of selling indulgences, started by the Church to fund the construction of the St. Peter's Basilica. He attacked this profitable scam by insisting that the Pope had no authority over purgatory and that the doctrine of the merits of the saints had no foundation in the Christian gospel. It was all fairly ideological at this stage. The debate widened, until it touched on many of the doctrines and devotional