Author
- Richard Sandbrook | Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto
The invader cannot consolidate control if citizens and their institutions refuse to comply with its rule. The tactics involve a complete refusal to co-operate with the occupying force along with open defiance.
That means that governments at all levels in the invaded nation continue to supply only basic services: clean water, electricity and policing, for example. Governments resign and civil servants find ways to subvert every order issued by the invader.
Crowds fill urban squares in silent or derisory defiance of orders, making it apparent to all — the occupiers, the dictator’s audience back home, less committed citizens and global observers — who are the true purveyors of violence against non-violent people
Throughout the occupation, citizens and non-governmental organizations focus on subverting the loyalty and morale of the occupying troops and functionaries and rallying international support.
In Canada’s case, the long history of friendship with Americans would likely mean that the morale of the occupiers would be low. The aim is to encourage defections by soldiers and functionaries, and erode the support base of the dictator. This erosion of support could lead to the overthrow of the leader, or at least to his concoction of a compromise to cover a retreat.
Attracting international support to Canada’s cause would not be a challenge. Trump has already alienated most of humankind and foreign governments during his first weeks in office.
Obstacles
Non-violent resistance is most effective with nation-wide training, organization and leadership. The national government is best equipped to provide the facilities. Training of volunteers could include responding to natural disasters and emergencies, as well as implementing a civil defence strategy.
Yet partisan divides and apathy make such nationwide training difficult. It would likely be viewed with suspicion by right-wing populist forces in this era of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
Apathy might also be a problem.
These considerations suggest that top-down, apolitical training in civilian defence may not work. If so, training and organization should be the goal of as many existing civil society associations as possible: churches, synagogues, temples, civil rights groups, unions, Indigenous rights organizations, peace advocates and climate groups, for example.
The manual authored by Michael Beer, the longtime director of the Nonviolence International non-governmental organization, includes more than 300 tactics. Widespread training and organization can not only deter aggression but ensure countries remain free of tyrants.
Shame perhaps isn't quite the right concept, but you're going to have a hard time using nonviolent tactics against an opponent whose response to them is lethal violence—that is, they kill anyone who refuses to comply until people either start to comply or they run out of people, and they are quite willing to run out of people. Nonviolent tactics worked in India against the British because they wanted the labour of the Indian people, and therefore wiping them out wasn't in the cards. (Executing people, even those they considered "lesser", effectively at random also didn't fit in with their concept of moral superiority.) The same tactics would not have worked against Hitler.
In this case . . . I don't know. Trump has demonstrated depraved indifference to the survival of everyone including his countrymen, so it would come down to the beliefs and behaviour of people at the lower levels, who are not going to be consistent. They don't believe they need our labour, so that excuse is out.
Good point. I guess this sort of thing will inevitably need to be a backdrop to the actual violent resistance.