TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Why nonviolent protests work better
Instead, research show nonviolent civil resistance is an effective means for policy-change goals.
Change Size
T
he omnibus Job Creation Law, which aims to disentangle the complex web of investment business and create more job opportunities, has waged protests in many parts of the country. Thousands of students and labor union members resist the "big bang" law, saying it will decouple the labor rights and harm the environment.
The protests have turned violent, with demonstrators throwing rocks, burning Transjakarta shelters and public facilities, while police have fired tear gas to "tame" protesters. Two weeks since the bill was approved, the protests and violence have continued.
People protest for a lot of reasons, but we don't know if they, especially the violent ones, lead to policy changes.
From research on social psychology, protests are linked to several variables such as grievances, efficacy, politicized identity and anger. Research from Stekelenburg and Klandermans (2013) in The Social Psychology of Protest, suggests that grievance and efficacy would predict protest participation.
At the very core of every protest are grievance, the feeling of illegitimate inequality, and the feeling of relative deprivation. Research suggests feeling part of a group that you perceive as deprived is especially important in protest engagement. We could see in the narratives of the protest against the omnibus law the shared grievances over the unjust clauses targeting workers as the deprived group.
Another variable predicting protest participation is the efficacy, which refers to individual expectation for the possibilities to alter conditions or policies through protest. A study from Van Zomeren et al., (2008) shows that feeling of efficacy, especially in politics, are highly correlated with participation in a protest, and the relationship proves to be meta-analytically important.
Another variable that correlates with protests is politicized identity. Normally, politicization of identities begins with the awareness of shared grievances and collective identities must be politicized to become the energy of a collective action. Metaanalysis by Van Zomeren et al., (2008) shows that the more politicized group members are the more likely they will engage in collective actions directed at the government or general public.
From a psychological point of view, anger is the most prototypical emotion that can predict protest engagement. Research suggests that group-based anger is an important motivator of protest engagement in disadvantaged groups. Besides, psychological research also found that the pride felt after collective action (for example, a street rally), also became an important predictor for future participation. We could see this in the motive from the indirectly disadvantaged groups, such as students who took part in the recent demonstrations.
Historically speaking, protests have been the ignition of many social-policy changes and the classic assumption always believes that a protest that is costly (for example violent protests) will be granted more outcome with expedited policy change. But this belief is not necessarily true, since assessing protest outcome is notoriously difficult and not statistically tested. Instead, research show nonviolent civil resistance is an effective means for policy-change goals.
In their combined qualitative and quantitative study, Stephan and Chenoweth (2008), show that nonviolent resistance methods are likely to be more successful than violent means in achieving strategic policy-changes. The study compared 323 nonviolent and violent civilian resistance movements from 1900 to 2006 in various countries, and found that major nonviolent campaigns achieved success 53 percent of the time in the sample, compared to the 26 percent success for violent resistance campaigns.
The reason for the success of nonviolent campaigns is that they encourage more broad-based participation in the resistance, which could translate into mounting pressure on targeted political group.
Research also shows nonviolent resistance is more likely to produce loyalty shifts, meanwhile the violent protests are mostly unable to produce meaningful loyalty shifts from the civilians.
Stephan and Chenoweth (2008) in their research "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict" also argue that nonviolent resistance has a strategic advantage over violent ones, since repressing nonviolent campaigns may backfire the oppressing regime. Nonviolent campaigners also appear to be more amenable to discussion and negotiation rather than violent campaigners, regardless of how disruptive they are.
Studies show that in facing a regime’s repression, violent campaigns lead to negative public opinions, while peaceful protests earn positive public support. Hence, in the case of the omnibus law, nonviolent resistance holds promise for the successful policy changes toward the large public interest.
Even though the formation of the Job Creation Law is deemed as hurting social justice values, the best cost-effective way to amend the situation is not the use of violence. We still have the Constitutional Court to amend or cancel the law in a democratic way. My own experiences in examining the law and filing judicial reviews with the Constitutional Court show that this institution gives great hope. We adopt the rule of law, hence it is only natural that everything is resolved through lawful and procedural processes.
From the perspective of law, the Job Creation Law contains many questions related to the process of its formation and content. The formal aspect of "legislation product" is very important since if it is proven to run counter to the proper rule, then the entire law could be annulled. This can be noticed from the short law-making process and constant changes of the final draft without the public knowing.
As in the omnibus law, it is the job of policymakers to create just and fair regulations for citizens. Political philosopher John Rawls said in his magnum opus Theory of Justice that through the "veil of ignorance", decisionmakers should leave behind their current status and circumstances to achieve fairness in policy-making. The justices in the Constitutional Court will examine the fairness of the law.
***
Sururudin is an advocate with a master’s from Sorbonne International Law School University Paris II Panthéon-Assas. Hapsari Kusumaningdyah has a master’s in economic psychology from University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and Paris 5 Descartes.
