How to Evaluate Success in Digital Resistance: Look at Guerrilla Warfare

The Iranian protests of 2009 are still framed as a failure. The same goes for the 2007 protests in Burma and other nonviolent movements that have combined digital technologies with civil resistance (digital resistance). Are these efforts really failures or are we simply looking through the wrong lens? What characterizes success in digital activism?

The international community and mainstream media seem to think that success means full-out regime change and overnight transitions to democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. This state-centric framework is the wrong one to use if the goal is to critically assess the success of resistance movements. We should instead be looking at digital resistance through the lens of guerrilla warfare, or “little war” in Spanish.

Guerrilla warfare is characterized by small, highly mobile groups that employ military tactics to harass a larger enemy, striking and withdrawing almost immediately. Hit-and-run tactics against supply chains and disrupting communication lines is a guerrilla favorite.

Tactically, guerrillas avoid confrontation with larger enemy forces and seek instead to attack smaller, weaker groups to minimize losses and exhaust the opposition. They seek the support of local populations in the process. Their goal is to weaken the enemy and eventually to undermine the state’s ability to prosecute the war; victory by attrition.

Civil resistance movements use guerrilla warfare. Their tactics and strategies are almost identical. The majority of guerrilla actions do not use violence. Given the similarities between civil resistance and guerrilla campaigns, we should look into how the latter are evaluated. If we used today’s media frames to evaluate passed successful resistance movements, they would all be failures.

The history of nonviolent struggle shows that movements which were counted out when major repression first hit – such as Solidarity in Poland in 1981 and nonviolent South African anti-apartheid strikers and boycotters in the mid-1980’s – were, a few years later, on the winning side (1).

This means that an evaluation framework for digital resistance should include a broader time frame and have a more micro-level focus. We should be looking at a group’s ability to organize an underground movement, recruit, spread propaganda, elicit support from the local population, employ a rich mix of tactics to over time to harass, provoke and delegitimize a repressive regime, and a group’s ability to continue existing even after government crack downs.

On this latter point, for example, “a more comprehensive and accurate frame on [Iran and Burma] would have reminded us that such shows of force are used only when a regime feels threatened, that is, when it perceives itself in a position of potential weakness if opposition is permitted to gain any foothold” (2).

9 responses to “How to Evaluate Success in Digital Resistance: Look at Guerrilla Warfare

  1. Great little post.

    Seems the trick is to string the little hit-and-run wins together, which is how/when a movement starts… that is, the path to r/evolution.

    This is where things like crowd-sourcing and social media/networking can play a real part, to raise the voices of the people and gain that critical foothold for the opposition.

  2. Thanks for this. You really got a lot into a few words on this important topic.

  3. Pingback: How to Evaluate Success in Digital Resistance: Look at Guerrilla Warfare » Article » OWNI.eu, Digital Journalism

  4. Pingback: How to Evaluate Success in Digital Resistance: Look at Guerrilla Warfare « politics

  5. As you’ve probably noticed, I’m catching up on you blog today. Thanks for this post. For the Global Digital Activism Data Set we are still stuck with the lack of outcome (success/fail) data, but maybe that is because we are looking at digital activism at a mid-point in its development: a movement can be labeled a failure until it succeeds and we won’t know the final outcome ’til one side gives up. In many cases, especially in repressive regimes, the battle continues.

  6. Pingback: The Political Power of Social Media | iRevolution

  7. Pingback: The Political Power of Social Media by Patrick Meier « surflightroy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s