Protest Movements Against Authoritarian Rule - Essay Example

PROTEST MOVEMENTS AGAINST ITARIAN RULE Several revolutionary protest movements have successfully resulted in an overthrow of an existing regime, especially when it has been dictatorial. Such protest movements have crystallized in the form of a movement towards democracy, such as for example, the Philippines in 1986, the USSR in 1990-91, or Ukraine and Georgia in recent years. But there are also examples of protest movements against dictatorial rule which have failed to overthrow existing regimes, the most notable example of which is China and the Tienneman square uprising in 1989 or the Solidarity movement in Poland in 1981. While a protest movement is a collective endeavour and is generally expressive of the political views of large numbers of people, the failed uprisings mentioned above indicate that they may not necessarily be successful in every case. This study examines why these movements were unsuccessful in achieving their objectives. According to Thompson, democratic revolutions can be understood as “spontaneous popular uprisings – peaceful, urban-based and cross class in composition – which topple unyielding dictators and begin a transition process that leads to the consolidation of democracy.”1 Including fraternity organizations, guerrilla organizations or other sects under the umbrella of social movements would possibly be stretching the definition of social movements too far2, but such organizations have also managed to attract a sizeable number of followers. According to Zirakzadeh, a social movement comprises a group of people who (a) consciously attempt to build a radically new social order (b) includes people from a broad range of social backgrounds and (c) makes use of socially disruptive, politically confrontational tactics.3 In general, where the question of overthrow of a regime is concerned, dictatorial, authoritarian regimes are vulnerable to violent, radical revolutions, including coups, that may successfully achieve this objective4. According to Tilly, earlier trends in the growth of social movements are linked to economic and political changes, such as the emergence of Parliaments, proletariats and market capitalization5. Tilly also points out that social movements can also be a prime factor functioning as a propellant towards democracy, such as the ones which occurred in the USSR in 1990-91, Serbia in 1996/7 and 2000 as well as Ukraine in 2004. But more often, social protest movements have flourished after the country in question has become a democracy, because political rights as well as individual rights such as the right to freedom of speech and expression, make it much easier to create and organize social movements to achieve the desired objectives. A salient example of a protest movement against an authoritarian regime that did not succeed in bringing about a definitive change in regime is the case of Poland. Solidarity was a Polish Trade Union federation that was founded in 1980 by Lech Walesa. It came into being due to a triggering event, i.e, when trade union activist Anna Walentynowicz was fired from work. At this time, a public opinion poll that was conducted in Poland found that 85% of the population felt that social inequalities were great or very great6. Solidarity was a broad social movement that was anti-communist and advocated non violence in its protest movement. Solidarity was one of the primary causes for the downfall of the Communist regime in Poland7 and significantly eroded the Communist base existing in the country after the IInd World War. A recent article which examined Polish workers in Ireland, for example, also pointed out that despite the low levels of actual unionization among Polish workers in Ireland, there is however a predominantly favourable attitude towards it largely due to the Solidarity regime back home.8 As Zirkazadeh(2006) has pointed out, the Solidarity movement in Poland was one of the major reasons for the downfall in state Socialism, but it cannot be classed as a great social movement that successfully changed an authoritarian regime, rather it would be more accurate to describe it as a repressed movement. Some of the possible reasons for this phenomenon include (a) the fact that the movement was not accompanied by a symbolic closure of the Communist period (b) the success of Solidarity was not adequately ceremonalized for the public and (c) no symbolic closure of the Round Table process, because the transfer to a new regime was still accompanied by the existence of corruption and low levels of public trust9. In discussing the Solidarity movement as applicable within the theory of social movements, Latoszek has argued that it did not fit the classic distinction that must be made between old and new movements, since neither class interests nor the interests of minorities were a priority during this movement.10 Kenney advances the theory that the lacklustre response in Poland to the changes brought about by the erosion of the Communist regime was largely due to the presence of Nazi sympathizers within the Communist leadership and among their members.11 Other researchers like Gross have claimed that several members of the non Jewish Polish population may have collaborated with the Germans, including participation in the extermination of the Jews.12 As a result, the public sympathy and support that the Solidarity Movement should normally have garnered within the country was diluted and the social movement it constituted to attack the Communist regime was not viewed as a true demonstration of people power, unlike the case in the Philippines. The dictatorial leadership of Ferdinand E Marcos in February 1986, which was overthrown by the people is an example of a protest movement that was successful in changing an existing regime and overthrowing the dictatorship13. It is most notable in that it was an exhibition of people power, or a peaceful overthrowing of the existing regime, which was also the case with the non violent democratic revolutions in eastern Europe in 1989, which led the countries to a democratic form of government. Poland differs from the Philippines in the level of lead time that led to the overthrow of the Communist regime. As Kenney points out, the Poles experienced opposition to the Communist regime over a long period of thirteen years before 1989, when several lessons were learnt. Such opposition led to the learning of several lessons, such as compromise, thinking about concrete goals that can also be achieved in a concise way and derived through negotiation.14 At the beginning of a protest movement, there is a sense of togetherness which however, breaks down if there is a long period of opposition. This was essentially the case in Poland, so that the protest movement as symbolized by Solidarity was unable to sustain its initial momentum and zeal in terms of its sense of purpose. In the case of uprisings such as Poland and Hungary, non democratic regimes did not wait for mass mobilization to take place, but rather seized the initiative in negotiating with the opposition before a potential crisis erupted.15 As opposed to this however, during revolutions in Philippines, Indonesia, Iran and Nicaragua for instance, the warning signs of a potential revolt were ignored by the dictatorial rulers, which only allowed mass support to snowball into a potent force that was able to overthrow the regime. Moreover, as Thompson also points out, because dictatorial rule does not involve class or caste, institutional or other State issues, such dictatorships enjoy little legitimacy outside a close knit inner circle of those in power and it is not so difficult to mobilize mass support to a level that can overthrow the regime.16 The protest uprising in China in 1989 started by students was similarly unable to sustain its initial momentum and could not overthrow the ruling regime. The social and political structure within the country was geared in such a way that students were viewed as elitist, while the workers were proletarian, with the antagonism between the two sections of society being fuelled by the Chinese Government.17 But during the uprising in 1989, the workers unrest was rooted in socio economic causes that motivated them to sympathize with the student uprising, i.e, rising inflation, widespread corruption and the declining status of the working class. The year 1989 was characterized by runaway inflation and there was resentment building among workers at Deng Xiaoping’s policy of allowing some elites to get rich, thereby widening the gap between the rich and the poor18. It is also significant to note that there was a public perception existing in China at this time that social inequalities were great, especially those created by the unequal distribution of wealth, with Xiaoping’s sons believed to be involved in corruption as well.19 Zhao points out that Communist education had imprinted a set of values upon Chinese people in general, which was however subjected to the onslaught from the Western media. The demand for freedom of speech and expression espoused by the students was demonstrated through a hunger strike, the most important form of protest during the 1989 movement.20 Although the 1989 protest was similar to earlier protest movements in China in that it was directed against authoritarian rule, the political situation in the 1980s was such that no rival political parties existed to the ruling regime. Most of the top level Government officers were still controlled by veteran CCP officers who were aware of China’s economic backwardness, but did not attribute these problems as being caused by Communism, but rather by inexperience21. The net result was that none of the top leaders really supported the students; rather the differences existing between them were merely on the basis of how best to stem the revolt. Workers supported the students out of sympathy and because of issues such as corruption and inflation, as stated earlier.22 Zhao expresses the view that because China in the 1980s had a relatively “unitary governing elite that held much tighter control over society”, the 1989 Movement could not organize so freely and raise demands so directly, neither was it able to muster the kind of long term mass support necessary in order to successfully bring about a regime change. Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it may be concluded that protest movements against authoritarian regimes are more likely to succeed when they are able to garner very high levels of mass support. Gathering a broad based coalition of support could occur when the battle being fought is an ideological one, such as the revolution in the Soviet Union in 1990-91, where the ideology in question was the achievement of democracy. Secondly, revolutions against dictatorial regimes are also more likely to succeed because they do not involve class, or other social issues, as demonstrated in the case of Philippines. This is because the legitimacy of the regime in question can be easily questioned by anyone outside the elite ruling group, especially because of the effects and suffering brought about by the repression existing under a dictatorial regime. The case of Poland however, where the revolution was unsuccessful, demonstrates that the lack of a strong and clear ideology or the element of compromise with the ruling regime may undermine the legitimacy of any new regime that seeks to take its place. The goal of the Poland revolution was to protest against Communism, but the strength of the movement was diluted despite the mass support it gained because of its compromises with the ruling regime, the presence of Nazi sympathizers within the Communist regime and the longer lead time. The case of China demonstrates how a regime that exists on the basis of propagation of certain ideals cannot necessarily be overthrown unless there is a strong opposition party which exists and promotes a differing ideology that has also been able to garner high levels of mass support. While a movement against a dictatorial regime can easily gather mass support very quickly, purely on the basis of overthrowing the repression inherent in the regime, it is more difficult to build a strong base of mass support on the basis of ideology. A revolutionary movement that seeks to establish and propagate democracy has a greater chance to succeed and gather support from a wide and broad based coalition of support, as demonstrated in the case of the Soviet revolution of 1990-91 and the revolution in Hungary. The establishment of a democracy may lay the ground for more struggles to support certain values and ideologies but it may be more difficult to elicit a broad based range of support, especially if there is any compromise between the ruling regime and those who are leading the revolution, as in Poland. It is only when there is a strong opposition political party that is able to offer an alternative ideology that gathers high levels of support and which can enable this opposing party to step in and take over the political position occupied by the ruling regime that a revolutionary movement is likely to be successful. Bibliography Dingxin, Zhao, 2004. “The power of Tiananmen: State-Society Relations and the Discourses and Activities during the 1989 Beijing Student Movement”, University of Chicago Press Hinton, William, 1990. “The Great reversal: the privatization of China 1978-89”, New York: Monthly Review Press. Kenney, P, 2001. “Framing, Political Opportunities, and Civic Mobilization in The Eastern European Revolutions: A Case Study of Polands Freedom and Peace Movement”, Mobilization, 6(2):193-210 Latoszek, Marek, 2006. “Solidarity- a contribution to social movement theory”, Polish Sociological Review, 1(153): 39-53 Lee, Hong Young, 1978. “The politics of the Chinese Cultural revolution: A case study”, University of California Press. Linch, Amy and Kubik, Jan, 2006. “The original sin of Poland’s third Republic discounting “Solidarity and its consequences for political reconciliation”, Polish Sociological Review, 1 (153):9-38 Polonsky, Antony and Michlic, Joanna B, 2003. “The neighbours respond”, Princeton University Press Smolur, Aleksnder, 1983. “The rich and the powerful”, IN “Poland: Genesis of a revolution”, (Abraham Brumbery edn), New York: Random House Thompson, Mark R, 2004. “Democratic Revolutions”, Routledge Tilly, Charles, 2004. “Social Movements”, Paradigm Publishers. Turner, Thomas, D’Art, Daryl and Cross, Christine, 2009. “Polish workers in Ireland: A contented proleterait?” Labour Studies Journal, pp 34-112 Wilson, J, 1973. “Introduction to Social Movements”, New York: Basic Books Zirakzadek, K.N., 1997. “Social Movements in politics, Part II”, Longman Read More