We Need to Attack

How to put pressure on government officials.

Srdja Popovic was one of the leaders of the Serbian youth movement Otpor, which helped topple Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000. After the victory of the revolution, he founded the Center for Applied Non-violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), and, in 2015, his book "Plan of the Revolution" was published.

Popovich told Radio Svaboda how the Serbian opposition tried to win over the security forces, why activists should read the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, and how the fight against the dictatorship is similar to football.

Why the 2000 revolution in Serbia was successful

First of all, we have learned a lot from our previous mistakes in 10 years of struggle. We had a lot of strategic planning and it was very important to unite the opposition.

The second trump card was the bet on youth. Otpor began as a student movement and expanded throughout the country.

Another point is documenting election fraud. From 1996-97 - when Milosevic lost the local elections - we knew it was important to have people at the ballot boxes and have proof of the valid election results. It is important to show this not only to people within the country but also in communication with the international community. We worked with a large umbrella structure of civic initiatives that provided 30,000 observers for the 2000 elections.

We knew that the opposition had won. And these were not our words against the words of Milosevic - there was material evidence that he lost the 2000 elections.

Another essential part of Otpor's strategy was working outside the big cities, working not only with ordinary proponents of democracy, not only with urban and more educated populations that were more inclined to support democracy.

Serbia started a general strike in 2000. There has been a shift from mere street protests to broader noncooperative tactics. And this also affected those who are engaged in physical work, and not just the more educated people and city dwellers.

Last on this list, but very important, we were ready for the transfer of power. Getting a bad leader to leave is one thing. Building democracy is another matter. It is a long, painful, and much less exciting process. The new president was sworn in 7 days after Milosevic admitted defeat. And the mayor of Belgrade - after all, the opposition also won the local elections - was sworn in on the evening immediately after the elections. Rebuilding the foundations of power and making it as democratic as possible is essential if you want an orderly transition.

How the opposition worked with government officials and security officials

The Serbian opposition and youth movement understood Milosevic's power structure. And, having at the initial stage the support among the urban residents, the more educated, the student movement, the intellectuals, they expanded their influence to more neutral parts of society, among which were businessmen and civil servants.

There were conversations with the army. The Serbian army was based on a conscription system and was not very happy with the five civil wars. Milosevic could not count on the army, and the police were his instrument of oppression. So we knew that if we could build a coalition of everyone but the police and Milosevic's party, we could eventually win.

There was also a lot of communication with the police, especially at the local level. One of the rules of nonviolent struggle that we have learned over the years is that if you can get the security forces to go over to your side, then you have a great chance of winning.

Part of that is realizing that cops are just men and women in police uniforms. And it was very important to work with the police at the local level. There were not just daily contacts on the street, but there was a conscious effort to convince these people that they would be better off if Milosevic was not in power. There was a whole campaign of persuasion - from symbolic actions when giving flowers to more strategic things.

For example, there were violent groups among Serbian football fans. Football fans hated Milosevic, but their understanding of the protest was this: go out and start a fight with the police. And our movement organized security squads to protect the police who were arresting us from the fans who supported us. By this, we wanted to convince the police that we are a non-violent movement. We also understood that acts of violence can provoke reactions, propaganda can use them against the movement, and they will also reduce the mass scale. Some studies show that movements that have a violent wing are less likely to succeed.

Is it possible to “fraternize” with security officials after mass torture?

First, you need to understand that repression is a sign of weakness, not strength. If Lukashenka’s regime now counts only on fear and repression, it means that he will lose the game.

We have worked with people from many countries where police behaved brutally and killed people. But you need to understand that the more they rely on the police to keep order, the weaker they are.

One more thing: repression is a game in which a lot depends on the number of participants. If repression does not cause fear and anger, it is meaningless.

First of all, we must forget about the common word "police." Crimes are made by specific individuals. Therefore, it is necessary to single out those parts of the power apparatus that are engaged in repression. They should be named, shamed, and pressured. They need to be threatened with prosecution, exposed at the international level. Do everything possible, but remember that these are specific individuals, and do not put pressure on entire police structures.

It may be that a policeman in the Belarusian province completely disagrees with those who tortured the protesters in Minsk. You won't know if you don't talk.

Efforts must be made to name and shame those who commit crimes. But at the same time, attract those who do not commit crimes. It sounds complicated, but it can be done.

Raise the Price of Powerful Violence

What the Belarusian movement is doing very well is drawing international attention to human rights violations. The higher the cost of police violence, the less likely they are to repeat it. If they steal you, you disappear and no one says anything - then tomorrow they will steal me, and the day after tomorrow someone else.

But if your kidnapping leads to thousands of your friends picketing the prison, letters from international organizations come, Amnesty International adds you to the list of prisoners of conscience, an international campaign for your release begins, then you are less likely to be tortured in prison.

Making these things public, raising the price of such actions is one of the ways to deal with them. And this is also a message for the participants in the movement - if you are arrested, you will not be left alone. Building solidarity is one way to respond to repression so that the authorities understand that this movement will not leave anyone in trouble, whoever it is.

This includes providing lawyers, attracting international attention, raising funds to help your family if it depends on your income and you are in prison. All of these things are very important tactically. But the most important thing is to raise the price for every act of violence, from simple detention to murder.

You can look at governments that were really brutal - for example, in Sudan. People were killed there, and the next day the streets were named after these people. Thousands of people attended their funeral. The day after the murder, their portraits were painted on the walls of houses throughout Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. It was a clear signal to the regime that if you want to kill us, you will get more protesters, and that mobilized the movement to do more.

But the most important thing is to clearly identify those who violate human rights, arrest and torture peaceful protesters, and send a message to everyone else: “You should be ashamed of these people. They stain the uniform you are wearing. There will always be a need for police to ensure law and order in this country. You need to get rid of these black sheep."

Attack, not wait

If you look at the historical studies of Maria Stefan and Erica Chenoweth, you can see that, on average, a successful nonviolent struggle campaign lasts two and a half years. However, the struggle in Serbia lasted for 8 years. Some Slavs, including Serbs, learn slowly.

It must be remembered that this is not a waiting game. You only win if you go on the offensive. Popular movement victories and soccer victories work exactly the same, under at least two rules. First, you will never win unless you score a goal, which means you need to attack, not just defend your own goal. It is necessary to win over more and more strongholds of the regime to our side.

Second, you need to control the field. The reason why, for example, Barcelona was almost invincible is that they always had control of the ball. They defined the game, controlled the middle of the field.

It seems to me that in the Belarusian case this is present and gives hope to the movement. It has managed to grow from a limited circle of human rights defenders, educated urban dwellers, into a general movement. He was joined by pensioners who have long been considered Lukashenka's support. There are people in factories who are trying to go on strike, although this has not yet been achieved on a large scale.

There is a transformation from the periphery to the mainstream. Or, to use soccer terminology, the center of the field is taken under control. I think that this is where the most significant progress has been made.

Mobilization is not enough, organization is needed

You should know that for a successful movement it is not enough to mobilize people, they need to be organized. Mobilization, like water, comes in waves or tides. After the elections, there was a tide in Belarus, but now there are fewer protests. The next big tide may be in summer. But you need to build an organization that can support activities and carry the values of international have these waves.

By building an organization, recruiting people, educating people, you create an opportunity to better respond to the next wave of mobilization.

Otpor was organized in each district. My movement had three people in each building. This is the reason why it could not be suppressed by repression and arrests of leaders. After all, it was independent of the leaders. Decisions were made, a strategy was developed that was available to everyone, at the lowest level of our movement, and when the leaders were arrested, their legs continued to run.

If you fall under severe repression, you are forced to talk only about it. It is a by-product of repression. But I believe the emphasis should be on strategic change and calls for free and fair elections.

The only result of the Belarusian crisis that can bring together various international players, but more importantly, can guarantee long-term democracy and stability in Belarus, is free and fair elections in which the Belarusian people will decide who will lead them.

Nonviolence can be more effective than violence

There is no brand more stupid than calling the Serbian revolution a “bulldozer revolution” just because there were photographs of a bulldozer at the end of a process that has been nonviolently mobilizing people for 9 years. But that's how the media work.

There is a clear distinction between violence and nonviolent resistance. It is based on the definition of several researchers who say: if you do not use a threat to inflict physical harm and do not destroy property, then this is a non-violent action. When you start wrecking cars and breaking windows, that is violence.

But there is also a general direction of movement. I see that the Belarusian movement is one of those that clearly adhere to a non-violent approach, despite the very violent tactics used against it.

A study by Maria Stefan and Erica Chenoweth shows that non-violent movements are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones. It is very important to understand here that non-violent discipline is a skill. And the non-violent approach is not only morally better than violence - it is more effective, and it does not necessarily depend on the religion, history, or mentality of the people.

It can be learned, it can be used, it can be promoted. You can also avoid those tactics that are more likely to lead to violence. If you look at the tactics of intervention, capture - where your troops meet their troops, violent clashes will take place.

On the role of symbols

Symbols are essential for a successful fight. We see this in the example of the white-red-white flag in Belarus. This is a typical example of how people can be brought together around something related to identity, and how many people can be encouraged to participate in small, dispersed activities - from individual women with umbrellas to images on buildings and cars. And this is what Belarusians do very well - adhere to a non-violent approach and use symbols in building a new national identity.

How to put pressure on government officials

Gene Sharp listed 200 tactics of non-violent struggle back in the 70s of the last century. Since then, the world has changed significantly, and each movement adds new things.

It should be understood that repression is a very expensive toy. You have to pay for these people to obey you. Look at Myanmar, the country where a military coup took place a month ago. Why do people queue up outside banks? They take money from banks controlled by the military. As a result, banks find themselves in a crisis situation and cannot pay salaries to the military.

Therefore, if we are talking about the pillars on which repression is based, one should look not only at people in uniform but also at the entire structure behind them. If your opponent imposes sanctions on you in the form of beatings, arrests, torture, and murder, you can impose sanctions on your opponents by depriving them of their salaries.

This is the strength of non-violent movements when large numbers of people join them. You can go from simple protest to a tactic called the refusal to cooperate. People can refuse banks their money. People can boycott companies and products. People can start a general strike.

If there is a threat of losing their jobs and people are very afraid to declare a general strike, they may not go to work for health reasons. Now is the time of the coronavirus. Whole factories can supposedly get sick.