Djayadi Hanan

Book Review

Kurt Schock, Unarmed Insurrections, People Power Movements in Nondemocracies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005, xxvi pp., 228 pp.

Schock’s purpose of writing this book is twofold. First, to contribute to the theory of democratization from the perspective of social movements by explaining the process of mass political contention which, almost always precedes democratization. The literature on democratization usually only emphasizes either on the structural requisites of democracy or transaction among elites. Second, to contribute to the increasing application of the political process approach to explanations of political contentions in non-democracies and to include the nonviolence explanation into the social movement studies (xviii). Political process model (PPM), according to Schock, is strong on explaining the emergence of social movements, while non violence action (NVA) is better in explaining its trajectories and emphasizes on the role of agency, especially strategy in promoting political change. NVA is also important because its use has been increasing in contemporary social movements related to democratic transition (16-23).

Unarmed insurrection is defined as “organized popular challenges to government authority that depend primarily on methods of nonviolence action rather than on armed method” (xvi). It is characterized by “…network oriented mobilizing structures, the implementation of a broad range of nonviolent actions, and the effective targeting of the state’s dependence relations…” (55). The focus is on pragmatic nonviolence action. It is deliberately chosen by the movement as method of struggle, not as a lifestyle (xvii).

By comparing unarmed insurrections in six countries, Schock applies the approaches of PPM and NVA to answer his main question: How and why the unarmed insurrections in South Africa, the Philippines, Nepal, and Thailand were successful while in Burma and China were failed? The main argument is that the success and failure of the movement depend on the availability of the political opportunity (both internal and external factors) and the ability of the movement through NVA to be resilient and to leverage those opportunities. There are three keys to Schock’s argument. First, the paradox of repression. All regimes responded with series of repression to the movements, but the effect was different. In South Africa, the Philippines, Nepal, and Thailand it resulted in the strengthening of the challengers while in Burma and China resulted in the collapse of the movements. Schock explains that “… repression may increase or decrease mobilization depending on the presence or absence of other dimensions in the opportunity structure” (33) such as the influential allies. Schock calls this process as “political jiujitsu” dynamic in which the capacity and will of the challengers to reject the repression grow quickly while the state’s capacity and will to govern through repression erode (65). Second, the movement’s resilience. This resilience is determined by whether or not the challengers’ organization is decentralized or centralized. The more decentralized the movement, the more resilient it will be. It is also dependent on the capacity of the NVA to apply as many methods of NVA as possible. Third, leveraging capacity or the ability to activate the third parties to support the movement. In part this is related to the first and second factors, and in another part it depends on the appeal of the movement as an NVA. When people (and elites) perceive that the government’s response to the NVA with violence is un-acceptable, then the movement can leverage to activate more third parties to support it.

Several critiques can be raised to Schock’s account. First, how and why the people choose the NVA is not explained very clearly. Knowing that the regime’s reputation in using violence is high like in China and Burma, why people chose the NVA? How do they know that NVA is the best strategy in challenging the regime? Do people (organizations) choose NVA because of deliberately analyzing its strengths and weaknesses or because people do not have other choices? The role of leadership can be the answer here, but Schock does not address it clearly. Second, his claim that NVA can be more important than political opportunity (162) is questionable. Part of his argument is that when the movement started, the political opportunity facilitates its emergence. But the NVA itself can create opportunity. Therefore, the divisions among political or military elites, for instance, can be the outcome rather than precondition of the movement (162). The problem to this claim is that why in Burma and China this could not happen. The plausible answer will be because there was no precondition of military or elite division before the movement. This means that political opportunity more fundamental than NVA. All countries that Schock studied show that where political opportunity is available, the movement succeeds and where the political opportunity is un-favorable, the movement fails. Third, why in countries like the Philippines the broad based umbrella organizations (to facilitate decentralized movement) could emerge while in Burma and China could not? How do we explain this? Part of the answer can probably be the nature of the regime. Differentiating which non democratic regime still allows the emergence of civil society organizations and which one does not is important. Unfortunately Schock regards non-democracies in residual category which means we cannot differentiate the type of non-democratic regimes. Fourth, many non-democratic countries like the Philippines before 1986, if not embraced isolationist policy like Burma, are very dependent on international context/support. Out of political opportunity dimensions of Schock’s model (influential allies, elite division, state repression, information flow), it is possible that this international context is a necessary condition, although not sufficient for the movement to succeed or fail. Schock’s model does not differentiate this; rather, he argues that the combination of all of these factors coupled with NVA that contribute to the success and failure of the movement.

Schock’s account can make contribution in at least three areas namely to the study of social movements, to the study of politics (democratization), and to the practice of social movements.

In the study of social movement, this book modifies the political opportunity approach by including the international context and broadening the opportunity scope. International context works through three levels and types of relations with the national: “(1) the extent to which a country is integrated with or isolated from the international system, (2) the extent to which a country is dependent upon another country, and (3) the nature of economic relations with other countries” (154). This study also broadens the dimensions of the opportunity by including influential allies from outside of the polity (such as Church in the Philippines) and the information flow. Political process approach application is also extended by its utilization in non-democratic context especially in the study of democratization in developing countries.

The inclusion of NVA can give insight on how to understand the trajectories of the movement and offset the shortcoming of political process approach. McAdam et al. admitted that “Movement largely born of environmental opportunities, but their fate is heavily shaped by their own actions” (quoted by Schock: 35). The NVA approach can specify how “power is used strategically…to undermine the state and alter the political context…” by using “…methods of contention that increase the likelihood of the success…” (36). In addition, Schock’s effort to conduct a comparative approach among the six countries is not only still rare in the study of social movement but also will give more insights to understand the social movement beyond the state/national capacity and context. Lastly, this study contributes to the social movement by explaining that political opportunity is dynamic and the movement itself can reduce or increase it along the way (162). Having this explanation, the mismatch of perception between objective opportunity and subjective opportunity as identified by Kurzman (1996) in Iranian Revolution case or by Schock in the case of China in this book, can be explained.

This account can also contribute to the study of politics, especially on democratization. It implies that mass political contention is not an epiphenomenon of the democratic transition. It is substantially part of it and by strengthening and increasing political opportunity it can contribute to the process of democratization. Democratization is not only caused by the availability of structural requisites of democracy or by elite’s transaction but also enabled by the unarmed insurrection. This movement for example, can create situation which forces political elites to withdraw their support to the regime. Another contribution is the insight that toppling authoritarian regime does not necessarily have to use violence or armed struggle. People power or unarmed insurrection, at least in four countries out of six of this study is possible to make “peaceful revolution.”

Last but not least, this study can also provide many useful insights to the social movement activists. Political opportunity should be leveraged by the movement to make it successful. The most salient one is the strength of a decentralized but coordinated organization of movement. Schock provides analysis in this book that decentralized organization will be more able to be resilient especially in facing the repression from the regime (142-153). His analysis also suggests that it is important for the movement to have a clear and limited goal, to embrace oppositional consciousness and temporary organizations rather than rigid ideology, to use multiple channels of resistance, to design and implement multiple methods of NVA, to have maneuvers in many places and spaces, and finally to make sure the use of communication and reference to public (163-170).

In conclusion, Schock’s account on unarmed insurrections has provided us with more comprehensive theoretical approach by modifying political opportunity approach and non-violence actions insight to understand the success and failure of people power/unarmed insurrection in several countries. These two approaches, when combined together, are very useful to understand not only how the movement emerges but also its dynamic and trajectories. His comparative method is also still rare in the study of social movement and has implication on understanding the social movement beyond the state capacity level.