Gene Sharp - Political theorist HARDtalk

words. I drove away and slept in my Gene Sharp is a political thinker

whose influence is now spoken of in the same breath as Mahatma Gandhi

and Martin Luther King. But he is no platform speaker or figurehead

at a demonstration. Rather, a quietly-spoken political

philosopher who has been writing about non violent struggles for 50

years. What has changed is that his most celebrated pamphlet is now

grabbing attention around the world. He has been hailed as having helped

mount protest movements from Burma to Serbia to Egypt. What is it that

Welcome. Thank you. You have been described as the man who changed

the world. Do you recognise that description? I have not heard it

exactly like that. From your local newspaper. They exaggerated just a

bit. You do not think you have had that level of influence? There has

been some influence from my writings. It is hard to judge. For

myself to do the judging. It should be judged a few years ahead. Your

most celebrated pamphlet has been translated into dozens of languages.

34. Tell me the jesters of it. Where did it come from? I have been

meeting with some of the Burmese democrats. Occasionally inside

Burma illegally. Occasionally in Thailand or elsewhere in the US

perhaps. This was back in the early 90s? Yes. One of the men was a

Burmese Democrat in exile. He was editing a new journal. In English.

He asked me to write for it. He gave me free rein. The problem was

I did not know Burma in debt. I had been steady dictatorships for

decades. I had many trips and rough grass and notes. And other things.

-- manuscripts. We had money at that time. I could have eight full-

time assistant. We worked for four months. We put a draft together.

That was what was published. It was published in Bangkok, not in the US.

I thought that was it. We have it translated into other languages

beside Vermes. I thought that was it. -- Burmese. It became a path

that there was used and translated across. It has been a part of major

ch chhas been translated into Ukrainian, Serbian, Chinese

and Arabic. It has plotted his way through the mayor changes for the

last 20 or so years. How that happened, I do not know. Let's try

an pick it may have happened. have a pushed for the struggle of

nine violence. -- non violence. You said it was a pragmatic choice, not

an ethical one. People get confused. They used to

tie it up with pass a prison. -- pacificism. It is not something

that arise from ethical or religious points. It has been going

on from way back to the beginning of time. It is about being stubborn.

You also make the point that violence is something which plays

into the hands of the strong, of dictators. Yes. It is a counter

revolutionary weapon. Have to destroy the revolution. The

political police also put agents into resistance movements. They

chided for us the resisters to use violence. Regimes always have the

great capacity for violence. You should do something they would have

greater difficulty in cancer reacting. It will give you a

greater chance to succeed. Other amendments when non-violence cannot

stop acts which would be enormously destructive? When you think about

sippets acts of mass of violence from a dictatorship or in Nazi

Germany or will wonder? Is there times when violence has to be

justified? It does not mean violence works easily or

effectively. Non-violence was used against the Nazis. In Berlin in

1943, women married to Jews demonstrated on the streets of

Berlin. Jewish husbands had already been sent to concentration camps

and gas chambers. Teachers in Norway under a fastest government

defeat in a plan for the state. People do not know its history.

That was never going to be a sufficient means in battling

against the regime. When the Nazis came into control in Berlin, they

were frightened of a general strike. Of a non-violent methods. You're

saying non violence can always be used but it has to be used quickly

and effectively enough. It will not always be as effective if it is not

planned orbit said it or people are to leave. -- not plans and people

are timid. It is not going to work. Let's explore how it might work.

You lose in your book, 198 methods of non-violence. Some of the most

familiar things such as protest letters and meetings. There are

others which might seem slightly more... things like singing,

forging officials. You talk about non-violent aerates. I am wondering

if there is a danger in these things. -- air raids. They do not

come here into something that will shake a dictatorship in themselves.

That is accurate. That is why you have to have a grand as --

strategies. They have to fit together and can she be to

weakening their regime and in harrowing the population. If you do

not have that. The Met it will have nil effect. They can also be

enormously risky. For those who are taking the steps. Of course. Any

defiance of a dictatorship is risky. They were not like it. How far do

you feel that you have a personal responsibility? You mention in your

baulk that as recently in 2005, the possession of the book could land

people in jail for seven years. -- you mentioned in your will cut.

has happened. How did it make you feel? Proud that it affected them

that way. It could land the ball in personal trouble. They are already

in Purcell's troubled by living within that regime. -- personal

trouble. You mentioned the importance of planning, strategy

and co-operating with others. In a country like North Korea, which is

one of the most locked down and repressive countries on earth,

where it is incredibly difficult for people to get together outside

family units in a way and is not sanctioned by the state. How could

he possibly that outbuilding these sorts of links and co-operation

which is essential? I do not know. It is a tough case. Even the family

unit is not saved because summer the members of the family may be

informers to the regime. The same thing in Nazi Germany. The regimes

do not like us. That is why they are so frightened about the spread

of these ideas. People have demonstrated the power. Let's look

at a country where there has been changed but they were as actively

in knows civil society, governments organisations which you say is

essential. Libya. Four decades there were very few institutions

that did not bear the mark of Gaddafi. It did work. It will

manage to overthrow the dictatorship. No, no. It started

off that way. Very quickly there was a general who supposedly

defective. He brought his soldiers and the guns to the resisters. He

said, here, I join the revolution. Two weeks before that happened.

Gaddafi and one of his sons predicted a civil war. Shortly

after that General defected, he was killed in a rebel camp. My

suspicion is he was an higher ranking for what better. He forced

the resisters into violence. That general was killed in a rebel camp,

very suspicious. They caught in the French and the Americans and a NATO.

It was not a people struggle in the end. There was violence. There was

internal conflict. But ultimately Gaddafi was deposed. It does not

seem to fit into your model. does not. Yet it was effective in a

certain way. In a certain way it ended the Gaddafi regime of. It did

It is a bit early to judge, isn't it? The people and not continuing

to demonstrate as needed, as in Egypt. But be asked about the way

you do find dictatorship. -- let me ask about the way you defined

dictatorship. Those who a press the vast majority. We can recognise

models throughout history and around the world today. What about

those dictators to do have considerable popular support? Nazi

Germany, where Hitler did profit from the demonisation of minorities

and got a large, that majority, support. The same way you deny

legitimacy and it is tough for knows situations. You start small.

You continue to expand. This was done by the women in Berlin who

were married to German husbands. -- Jewish husbands. It was done in

Norway, we are used to live, against the fascist regime. --

where I. In many countries, you often hear this in the Middle East.

There was a sense from a lot of people that we may want democracy

but we also liked the idea of a strong man in charge. Otherwise

there will be internal conflict, civil war, competing tribes might

come up against each other. It is not necessarily all or nothing.

People have many views. Some people conclude this regime is not

something that will bring us satisfaction and a good life. They

joined together. There is no call Key cookie cutter. We have a guide.

It's a guide to how people can study to plan their own strategies.

Differing situations, differing circumstances. When you say that,

do you accept Chaunac different degrees of authoritarianism? Oh, of

course. There was the Nazi system and the Stalin's -- Stalin system.

I have Sharp's Dictionary of Power and Struggle. Almost 900 terms and

definitions. You have to have clear thinking and not make sweeping

generalisations. You have to communicate it very precisely.

know in the short pamphlet, you have had to, in a way, generalise

to make it concise. Is that perhaps part of the weakness of the

arguments in the book? You were very dismissive about the dangers

of negotiation. Yes. Is there no place for negotiation with a

dictatorship? When the regime has fallen apart, the dictator wants to

go to the airport. To be tricked into bargaining, you do not want

half of that dictatorship to survive. But what about a

dictatorship that can see itself going, negotiating itself out of

existence? Give me an example. order to ensure that it cannot be

run out of the country or round-up in the ICC. Dictators to not

negotiate themselves art of power. There is no example? Not that kind.

If it is all or nothing, when it comes to the situation in Egypt,

there, a lot of people are unhappy about the influence that the army

still has. Yes. In that case, people should have, for example,

boycotted the recent elections? There was a major mistake made by

the opposition. They negotiated with the regime. Hosni Mubarak had

to resign. He said he would resign if the military were put into

control. The same military that had supported him for decades. That is

how he and his regime came into power in the first place. They

agreed to turn power over to the military and the military are very

reluctant to step out of the picture complete be. So you see

Egypt as a missed opportunity? first half has been done. They put

the current situation in place and they still have that problem now.

What about the place where we began, burner? -- Burma? A democratic

deep-freeze. But there have been some seismic shifts in terms of

moves towards liberalisation. Is it a mistake for Aung San Suu Kyi to

be talking to the Government as she is? No. Does that not run counter

to what you're saying about negotiation? About going to the

airport. That would be the ideal situation. She has said there is

flexibility. That regime has been under great internal pressure for

decades, also internationally. There are, as has been said, cracks

in the monolith. Briefly, in terms of outside pressure, as far as that

country is concerned, is now the time perhaps for the international

community to ease sanctions and order to encourage those apparently

reformist parts of the government or is it time still to keep the

pressure on with very tight sanctions? I would suspect it is

time to keep the pressure on. I did not know the situation in any great

depth or detail. I'm very reluctant about giving advice. You have been

very modest all the way through about claiming any credit or the

role your book has had on all these revolutions. Nonetheless, it has

tapped a vein. Why do you think it is now that people are paying

attention? Some people started paying attention quite a while ago.

In Serbia, for example, when this was published in Serbian. Do -- the

youth got copies of my book. It was published in 1973 and a developed a

strategy for about struggle. It has developed beyond that. Do you see a

movement towards more non-violent struggle at the moment? A

historical upsurge in revolution? Absolutely. Why? Because it is

happening. When Poland started, when there was the resistance in

Czechoslovakia, these cases are multiplying. Estonia, Latvia and

Lithuania, where we did have to the British influence. -- deliberate.

Is this just a perpetual struggle that we are seeing between those

few who want to keep power for themselves and the masses who want

greater freedom, greater dignity or is there any chance that we are

going to sort of punched through to win new era where the majority will

give free lives? -- punch. -- live. These troubles, which there will be

many more of, are happening. They are not symbolic. They're changing

the political systems of these countries. Not perfectly. There are

still problems to be confronted and solved but it is happening and each

time it happens, it gives the message to people in other parts of