Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Author Erica Chenoweth

1. The Role of External Support in Nonviolent Campaigns: Poisoned Chalice or Holy Grail?

Author:
Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC)
Abstract:
This monograph is based on an ICNC-sponsored multi-year research project that examines the effects of different forms of external aid on the outcomes and longer-term impacts of civil resistance campaigns. Very little research has systematically investigated the impacts of external support on the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance. Existing research reaches somewhat contradictory conclusions, with some finding that external support for nonviolent campaigns is harmful, that external support is sometimes helpful, or that external support has little observable effect. This study assesses different types of external assistance—material and non-material—to civil resistance movements offered by state and non-state actors at different stages: pre-, during and post-conflict periods. It further evaluates the impact of the specific type of aid, its timing and provisions by different actors on the overall trajectories of civil resistance campaigns and their outcomes.
Topic:
Civil Society, Foreign Aid, Non State Actors, Resistance, and Nonviolence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. A Source of Escalation or a Source of Restraint? Whether and How Civil Society Affects Mass Killings

Author:
Erica Chenoweth and Evan Perkoski
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Why do some state-led mass killings end quickly while others endure for over a decade? And why do some states murder millions of constituents during the course of mass killings, whereas other states seem to retreat from the brink after killing hundreds? A large body of work has focused on the important role played by civil society and nongovernmental actors in initiating different forms of rescue, evasion, and assistance in the midst of different cases of mass killings, as well as on the political pressure they have applied in bringing about the end of civil conflicts. Despite many inspiring and hopeful cases of collective action under systems of intense repression, other research finds civil society can accelerate or exacerbate mass killings. In this paper, we test some basic mechanisms that emerge from the literature on the connection between civil society and mass killings, and we find that a complex albeit meaningful relationship exists. We find that, in general, a relatively participatory and autonomous civil society is correlated with shorter periods of mass killings. However, we also find that active civil societies are associated with higher rates of lethality, particularly when the society has high levels of inequality. Because most mass killing events are relatively short, our findings suggest that civil societies in states with uneven access to power are more commonly correlated with longer, deadlier spells of government violence. This conclusion seemingly supports the view of civil society skeptics, at least in highly unequal contexts where mass killings have already begun.
Topic:
Civil Society, Atrocities, Escalation, and Massacre
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Women’s Participation and the Fate of Nonviolent Campaigns: A Report on the Women in Resistance (Wire) Data Set

Author:
Erica Chenoweth, Conor Seyle, and Sahana Dharmapuri
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Our Secure Future
Abstract:
The Women, Peace and Security agenda is a transformative policy mandate with a global constituency. It provides policymakers with the tools to end cycles of violent conflict, create more equitable peace processes, and promote gender equality on a global, national, and local scale. Passed in October 2000, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (UNSCR 1325) underscores women’s agency, voice, and capacities as intrinsic to creating more effective international peace and security–related policies. Since 2000, more than 80 countries have adopted national action plans and policies to robustly implement the Women, Peace and Security agenda. In 2017, the US Congress adopted the Women, Peace, and Security Act to incorporate the principle of gender equality into US foreign policy. As the global agenda on Women, Peace and Security is increasingly implemented, the transformational role of women as direct actors in issues of peace and security is becoming more obvious. This is certainly true in the case of formal institutions, where women are increasingly represented in higher positions internationally. It is also true in less formal, official domains: women have been at the forefront of civil resistance movements throughout history, and they have been visible leaders in contemporary nonviolent resistance movements from Sudan to Algeria and beyond.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Women, Peace, and Nonviolence
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

4. Struggles from Below: Literature Review on Human Rights Struggles by Domestic Actors

Author:
Erica Chenoweth, Tricia Olsen, Kyleanne Hunter, Pauline Moore, Jonathan Pinckney, and Heidi Reynolds-Stenson
Publication Date:
02-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute of International Education (IIE)
Abstract:
In 2016, USAID’s Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance launched its Learning Agenda—a set of research questions designed to address the issues that confront staff in USAID field offices working on the intersection of development and democracy, human rights, and governance. This literature review—produced by a multidisciplinary team of graduate students and professors—synthesizes scholarship from diverse research traditions on the following Learning Agenda question: What do we know about the role of citizens, social movements, and other domestic civic actors (as opposed to transnational actors or government officials) in advocating for particular human rights outcomes in their country? And what can we learn from the successes and failures of their activities? Much of the research on this topic has focused on North America and Europe, but do any of these findings have the potential to translate to other country contexts? Are there particular contextual or tactical variables in these country contexts that make it less likely that domestic civic actors can have an impact? Are there some kinds of rights that are easier to fight for than others? Key findings include: Context matters: democratic political systems allow grassroots human rights activists more opportunities and greater likelihood of success; extreme poverty makes grassroots mobilization harder. Rhetorical framing matters a lot, and is tricky: local activists can be more successful by framing their work as a human rights struggle and by positioning that struggle within broader international conceptualizations of human rights, as captured in founding international human rights documents. However, activists must take equal care to translate these concepts into frames that resonate locally and are culturally appropriate. Connections matter: activists are more successful if they build connections with each other—within a particular rights movement and across rights movements, within a country and across countries—and if they build connections to political and economic elites and to a broad constituency base. These vertical, horizontal, and transnational ties can be supported simply by bringing activists together, but also depend on framing, since framing is crucial to how activists see themselves and their peers, how they engage their base, and how they target elites. Organizational structure matters, but there is not an ideal type of organization that consistently is more successful in advocating for improved human rights; rather, organizational type, formality, and complexity depends on the right being fought for, the goals of the rights movement, and contextual factors such as regime type or level of repression. Tactics matter: activists must use tactics that are appropriate to their rights fight and to their context, and often use many different tactics at different times. However, confrontational and disruptive tactics—such as protests or boycotts—are often more effective.
Topic:
Human Rights, Social Movement, Democracy, and USAID
Political Geography:
Global Focus