The International Day of Non-Violence is celebrated on 2 October, the anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi. It was designated by the United Nations in June 2008 as a day to "disseminate the message of non-violence, including through education and public awareness."
IFES commemorates this day and the ways democracy provides an alternative to the violent resolution of political and social conflicts. While such conflicts will always exist, democracy provides a framework through which societies can determine policy and legal issues without resorting to force. Democracy also establishes ground rules that help promote equality among citizens, trust in the electoral process and freedom of peaceful expression.
IFES Research Officer Lisa Kammerud, who works on projects to prevent election-related conflict, answers some questions about the ways democracy helps promote nonviolence.
Question: Often, violence erupts during political transitions or when the population demands social change. How do democratic processes help avoid violence in these situations?
Answer: Democratic systems and processes are intended to provide space for peaceful political debate and social change. That is, people are supposed to have the freedom to state their opinions, demonstrate and protest against injustices they perceive, and campaign for and elect people who they believe will enact the reforms that they advocate. Those elected are then accountable to voters because they serve limited terms and thus have incentive to do what the people want, and respond to their public demonstrations or other expressions of opinions. The court system is another alternative for bringing issues to public attention and to advocate for change. If all people have equal public space to speak and demonstrate, elected leaders have equal political space to debate laws and policies, and the courts can be accessed by all, then change can be affected through public pressure, laws and policies, or court decisions, with no need to resort to violence. This is the ideal.
Q: But many countries are democracies, or in transition to democracy, and still experience violence related to political disputes. Why is that?
A: Even established democracies are not perfect systems, and there is unfortunately no governmental system that is trusted by all — nor is there any system that is completely unbiased toward all. Established democracies tend to experience much less internal and external violence, however. Countries in transition to democracy are a very different story. Such transition often involves clashes with regimes or groups that want to hold on to power, and have little incentive to allow the competition of other parties or the airing of other ideas. Recent examples of countries experiencing the Arab Spring illustrates the challenge — and potentially the rewards — of trying to maintain a nonviolent movement. Such transitions also involve airing very serious policy differences and raising challenges to social norms in an environment in which adequate institutions for debate and protection of human rights are not yet available. It is a challenging process, and those moments are exactly where organizations like IFES try to assist in bridging the gap between authoritarianism and a fully functioning democracy.
Q: Elections in particular can be a trigger for violence. What can be done to mitigate this sort of violence?
A: Elections are ideally a conflict resolution tool themselves because they provide a process for the expression of presenting and choosing among competing political ideas and personalities. But they can aggravate underlying conflicts or trigger violent reactions if the process is perceived as unfair. Deciding the best ways to mitigate such risks depends on a good analysis of the country context. That is, in some countries, the threats of violence largely come from political actors and party supporters who fight each other. In other countries, the government and police represent the greatest dangers to voters and the process. In post-conflict countries, special security arrangements often must protect the process from a variety of actors who may want to disrupt it. Some countries actually experience all of these issues. However, some common factors that help reduce election violence are: a credible and transparent election management body; good coordination between the EMB, security and political parties on security issues; and extensive civic and voter education on the election process and peaceful means of resolving disputes.
Q: What sort of impact does public education or awareness campaigns have on lessening or preventing violence?
A: Education campaigns can explain voting and other electoral procedures, as well as advocate for peaceful campaigning and post-election activities. People who know where and how to vote are less likely to be frustrated and create arguments or conflicts that can lead to violence in polling stations. Citizens who understand why and how political groups may visit their communities and hold campaign events are less likely to disrupt or refuse such events from parties they may not like. Messages for peaceful campaigning — and messages on what to do if a dispute or complaint arises — can provide information on the consequences of doing violence and remedies for those who may experience it. As mentioned earlier, many countries in transition have not established institutions that can help peacefully resolve disputes, and violence may be seen as a perfectly legitimate solution to disputes. Changing the decision to resort to violence requires education, not only to promote peaceful debate, but to showcase the institutions and resources available to resolve disputes that will inevitably arise.