Why the far right’s use of nonviolent action should be questioned https://wagingnonviolence.org/2021/10/why-far-right-use-nonviolent-action-should-be-questioned/ October 5, 2021
Extracts: Three levels of ation: Dissent, civil disobedience, political disobedience... When people break laws they see as unjust through civil disobedience, they step out of the confines of regular dissent. They accept the legitimacy of the political structure and/or political institutions but resist the moral authority of the resulting laws and are willing to bear the consequences of their actions.
Political disobedience is the most radical use of nonviolent action, as it challenges the legitimacy of the state — often rejecting the political system as a whole. While political disobedience against dictators has proven highly effective, it is questionable whether political disobedience is legitimate in fully democratic systems
Right-wing populism has a distinct tendency towards political disobedience, as it often questions the legitimacy of liberal political elites and institutions that — in its view — do not sufficiently represent the will of “the people.” Populists are also impatient with procedures and often look for a quick way to achieve their political goals without going through the courts or the ballot box. In many instances, they are therefore flirting with political disobedience, which — the case studies show — triggers repressive responses by governments. This repression can in turn be used again by the movements to mobilize sympathy from supporters.
There are clearly many issues that are strongly contested in democracies, and nonviolent action can be an astute tool for nonviolent conflict resolution. Nevertheless, we should question if we can call nonviolent action legitimate if it does not have justice-seeking ends. Concerning many of the issues pushed by far-right actors, these ends are highly questionable
Far-right actors often punch down when engaging in nonviolent action — meaning that rather than target the authorities or big corporations they target their nonviolent action at socio-economically or politically “weaker” parties, in particular minorities.
The use of nonviolent action by the far right, it is striking that a lot of its actions are stretching, if not crossing, the boundaries from nonviolence to violence. ..The issue with overstepping the boundary of nonviolence towards violence is based on the pragmatic approach that right-wing actors have toward nonviolent action. Since they see it as more of a tactical tool to achieve their ends — and not a moral commitment — it’s easier to slip into behavior that includes threats and intimidation.
If actors at the political fringes choose to engage in nonviolence rather than use violence to achieve their ends, this might actually be a positive trend. Still, this engagement should stay within the confines of dissent or civil disobedience, should not cross the boundary of violence, not punch down and be scrutinized in terms of its ends.
Ref: Daniel Petz: “The Dark Side of Nonviolent Action: Right-wing Populism and the Use of Nonviolent Action,” https://brill.com/view/journals/popu/aop/article-10.1163-25888072-bja10023/article-10.1163-25888072-bja10023.xml?language=en