Michele Ndedi Final dissertation-v4

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
DIVISION OF POLITICS & INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
To what extent can nonviolent revolutions bring regime
change?
Word count: 9978
Michele Ndedi Batchandji
Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfilment of BSc (Social Science) Degree 2015-16.
I confirm that this dissertation is entirely my own work

Clarifying the terms....................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract............................................................................................................................................. 4
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... 6
Abbreviation ................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 8
2. Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Previous Researches and Methodologies ............................................................................10
2.2 The stand of this study................................................................................................................. 12
3. Hypothesis and Research question ..................................................................................14
4. Methodology............................................................................................................................. 15
4.1 For the Quantitative research...................................................................................................15
4.1.1. Interpreting the dataset.......................................................................................................................16
4.2 For the Qualitative Research..................................................................................................... 18
5. Research Results ..................................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Quantitative Research................................................................................................................ 20
5.1.1 First test: Evaluating the correlation between the likelihood of success and the
possibility of establishing a democratic regime after a revolution.................................................21
5.1.2 Second Test: Evaluating the correlation between the likelihood of establishing a
democracy after a revolution and the level of violence of a revolution........................................23
5.1.3 Third Test: Evaluating the correlation between the Growth Domestic Product per
capita and the type of revolutions................................................................................................................25
5.1.4 Evaluating the correlation between the likelihood of having an autocracy or not after
a revolution and the degree of violence used during the campaign...............................................26
5.2 Interpretation of the results...................................................................................................... 27
5.3 What makes Nonviolent Revolutions efficient?...................................................................28
5.4 Critics of the effectiveness of Nonviolence ..........................................................................32
5.4.1 Realist Theory .......................................................................................................................................... 32
5.4.2 Contemporary opponents ...................................................................................................................32
6. Case study ................................................................................................................................. 35
6.1 Libyan Revolution......................................................................................................................... 35
6.2 Indian Fight for Independence..................................................................................................37
7. Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 40
7.1 What was my claim?..................................................................................................................... 40
7.2 What are the limitations of my claim? ...................................................................................40
7.3 For the future? ............................................................................................................................... 41
8. Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 43
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................. 45
Appendices..................................................................................................................................... 49
Risk Assessment Form ..............................................................................................................57
2

Clarifying the terms
The generic term “nonviolent revolutions” refers to a mass practice of civil disobedience.
According to the encyclopaedia Britannica, civil disobedience can be defined as a “refusal to
obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to
violence or active measures of opposition” (Britannica). Non-violent activism can take
different forms, ranging from a very subtle offensive, using communication medium such as
radio, speeches, writings, and arts, to a more rebellious manner of showing discontentment
with the manifestation of protests, the use of rude gestures or the use of symbolic noises
(Sharp, 1973).
This essay will only base its argumentation upon nonviolent revolutions that happened in
Asia and Africa from 1930 to 1999. The revolutions chosen all had for ultimate goal to
change their respective government.
The other crucial term of the essay question is “regime change”. Oxford Dictionary defines it
as “a replacement of one administration or government by another, especially by means of
military force” (Oxford Dictionary). This paper will, thus, challenge the general knowledge
that Oxford Dictionary exposed by focusing more on cases of regime change that have been
brought while recurring to peaceful methods.
3

Abstract
In all the different learning establishments, it is widely suggested that the use of violence is
necessary to reverse any political regime that is no longer judged effective by its population.
Violence is part of the world’s culture and is considered justified and appropriate in some
occasions (Alhoff, Evans and Henschke, 2013).
Dr Erica Chenoweth and Dr Maria Stephan challenge this view by analysing 323 cases of
violent and nonviolent revolutions that occurred between 1900 and 2006. Their findings are
surprising as they observed that non-violent revolutions were more likely to be successful
than violent revolutions (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2008). In order to further analyse their
results, this paper concentrates on the extent to which a nonviolent revolution can be
successful. By defining positive change for a country as the establishment of a peaceful and
durable political system - a democracy - and a growing economy, the paper evaluates how
civic resistance can help to achieve it. The essay bases its argumentation on the analysis of 72
violent and nonviolent revolutions that happened in Africa and Asia from 1930 to 1999 with
the addition of two variables: the Gross Domestic Product per capita after each revolution and
the type of regime brought by the rebellion. Besides, the essay looks closely at the Libyan
revolution of 2011, which is an example of a ‘successful’ violent revolution and at the Indian
fight for Independence, which is an example of a nonviolent revolution, to clearly showcase
the results that the different types of revolutions can bring.
The dissertation demonstrates that nonviolent revolutions are the only type of actions able to
establish durable and peaceful regime changes, as only those revolutions can achieve real
success with the establishment of a fair and democratic political system. The conclusion of
the paper also clearly stipulates that despite a clear increase in the use of nonviolent methods
4

to oppose governments, Nonviolence is still not taught as a practical and effective way to
rebel.
5

Acknowledgement
The author would like to express her gratitude to her academic tutor, Dr Havercroft, who
advised her throughout the writing of this dissertation and to Dr Justin Murphy, who was of a
precious help with the quantitative research. The writer would also like to thank a fellow
researcher, Emmanuele Pirozzi, who helped for the finding of relevant sources for the paper.
Finally, the author would like to specially thank Dr Erica Chenoweth who accepted to share
her data for the writing of this paper.
6

Abbreviation
GDP Gross Domestic Product
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
US United States of America
TNC Transitional National Council
INC Indian National Congress
7

1. Introduction
A strong impulse for studying the impacts of revolutions emerged while watching the
violent Libyan revolution that happened in 2011. The media coverage of this event was such
that it could have whetted the curiosity of any young researcher interested into the topic
and made them wonder whether there was any existing literature explaining why the use of
violence seems so important in our societies. Why is so little attention accorded to the
teachings of famous activists such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Martin Luther
King, who indirectly or directly changed political situations in their countries by extoling
nonviolence? As every school focuses their History programs on wars and armed conflicts, it
is the norm to think that violent methods are the only effective ones to change a regime.
However, two political scientists, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, were puzzled by this
assumption and conducted statistical analysis to find out whether nonviolent revolutions
were less or more likely to be successful than violent revolutions. Their study showed that
civic resistance was more effective at overthrowing a regime than any overly violent
campaign (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2008). Other scholars, Karatnycky, Ackerman and
Rosenberg, had previously focused on nonviolent revolutions and the results of their
findings paved the way to the findings of Chenoweth and Stephan. They observed that
recurring to civic resistance in times of conflict was more likely to put in place a democratic
regime than any campaign that was predominantly violent could (Karatnycky, Ackerman and
Rosenberg, 2005). Basing the paper on those two works, this dissertation will focus on the
question to what extent can non-violent revolutions bring regime change. The essay will
argue that doing a campaign that is principally nonviolent is the only way for a rebellious
group to secure real success. The idea of success developed throughout the paper
8

corresponds to the establishment of a peaceful political climate and the creation of durable
institutions in a country. To prove that only nonviolent revolutions can successfully bring a
change of regime, a quantitative study of 72 nonviolent and violent revolutions that
happened in Africa and Asia from 1930 to 1999 was run. The results of this quantitative
analysis constitute a valid proof to reinforce Chenoweth’s findings. The study allows us to
scientifically claim that the scope of effects of nonviolent resolutions cannot be limited to
the success or failure of achieving a government’s removal: successful nonviolent action can
bring positive long term change. Secondly, a qualitative analysis has been done to better
expose the effects that the two different types of revolutions can bring. The essay carefully
analyses two examples of violent and nonviolent rebellions, one supposedly successful
violent campaign, which occurred in Africa, and another supposedly unsuccessful, which
happened in Asia. The study of the violent campaign clearly illustrates that even when a
violent revolution succeeds in attaining the desired outcomes, as for example the
overthrowing of the head of government, the new regime put in place may foster more
instability than the former one. To the contrary, the second case study in Asia shows that
even in a case of a supposedly failed nonviolent revolution, it is still possible to learn many
positive lessons from it.
All of the events exposed in the paper bring us back to our core idea that nonviolent
revolutions, when well led and when fighting for the establishment of a more principled and
more equalitarian society, are the only type of revolutions able to bring a long lasting and
relatively peaceful new government to power.
9

2. Literature Review
This chapter will focus on the concept of Nonviolence and show its relevance for leading
a revolution to success and establishing a more peaceful future in the aftermath of a
revolution. We will firstly outline how some scholars have proved Nonviolence
effectiveness; some of them did so using very convincing methodology, while others did not.
Finally, we will study how this research will reiterate their findings but also how it will prove
that recourse to violence is futile.
2.1 Previous Researches and Methodologies
In recent years, more and more scholars have questioned the widely accepted view
that violence is a necessary tool when demanding for more liberties or when demanding for
the change of a government (Chenoweth and Lawrence, 2010). Karatnycky, Ackerman and
Rosenberg were curious to find out whether there was any relation between civic resistance
and the rise of democracies at the end of the 20th
century. They studied 67 countries that
had become democratic in the years preceding their writings. They found that the
transitions to a more democratic political regime was not related to the elapsed time after a
revolution, as it could have been assumed before. Instead, their study clearly highlighted
that the majority of the successful transitions all had in common one key factor: a strong
nonviolent revolution that had triggered the establishment of a democratic regime
(Karatnycky, Ackerman and Rosenberg, 2005).
These findings represented one big progress in the field of Nonviolence. Before the
publication of that research, some scholars had argued that Nonviolence theory was
practical and efficient, yet they had not proved it in a scientific way as Ackerman and his co-
writers did. Gene Sharp, for example, is one of the most famous advocates of pragmatic
10

nonviolence and wrote numerous papers covering this topic such as “The Methods of
Nonviolent Actions”, “Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th
Century Practice and 21st
Century
Potential”, “The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part Three Dynamics of Nonviolent”, “From
Dictatorship to Democracy or even Power and Struggle”, to cite only a few of them (Sharp).
However, he did not carry out an advanced quantitative study to be able to emit patterns
and prove the effects of Nonviolence over violent methods. He studied in details the
different methods that can be adopted while using Nonviolence and defended the idea that
civic resistance was the most effective method to adopt in case of disenchantment with a
government (Sharp, 1973). Nevertheless, as he did not do any advanced quantitative
research to back up his argumentation, his affirmations were still subject to well-funded
contradictions. One year after Ackerman and his co-writers’ paper publication, Martin
Kurlansky published a book called “Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a
dangerous idea”, for which he even received a Peace prize. In this book, he based his
argumentation on historical events and on the work of famous activists, such as Gandhi or
Martin Luther King, to claim that Nonviolence can end conflicts and help activists win their
battles (Kurlansky, 2006). However, once again, the examples mentioned in his book can be
seen as isolated examples or it can be argued that Nonviolence was an option only in those
particular cases.
In 2008, two political scientists, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, conducted a pivotal
research for the field entitled “Why Civil Resistance works?”. In that study, they did not limit
themselves to studying why nonviolent revolutions can represent a good alternative when
wanting to change a government. Instead, they broadened the area of research and
challenged the view that violent revolutions were more likely to bring success than
nonviolent ones. They analysed 323 cases of violent and nonviolent revolutions from 1900
11

to 2006 and found that 53% of nonviolent campaigns had achieved success while only 26%
of the violent ones had achieved so. The methods used by Chenoweth and her co-writer and
Ackerman and his co-writers leave little room to critics. Nevertheless, despite the existence
of those elaborated researches, the practice of Nonviolence is still not widely recognized as
being the most successful method to overthrow a government.
2.2 The stand of this study
The research presented in this paper is a continuation of the two quantitative
studies mentioned above. The paper will not only echo that Nonviolence is the most
successful method for overthrowing a government but it will also add that civic resistance is
the only method to successfully bring a stable regime. Chenoweth and Stephan’s research
was really effective at explaining that nonviolence works better than violence but they did
not show that violence does not work in the long run. By replicating the research methods
of Chenoweth, but only for cases that happened in Africa and Asia, the paper will argue that
violent revolutions are less likely to foster economic growth and that they are more likely to
favour the arrival of a dictator in power. Besides, the paper will claim that violent
revolutions cause more material, physical and moral damages than Nonviolence. All of this
in order to prove that only Nonviolence can help bring to power a government that will be
driven by peace and by democratic values.
The study portrayed by this paper is effectuated in the aspiration that, in the following
years, the theory of Nonviolence will no longer be overlooked but that it will receive more
attention than violent doctrines, in the hope that, in the programmes of future schools, the
idea of Colman McCarthy developed in his book “I’d Rather teach Peace” will be adopted
and that the study on Nonviolence will constitute an important section of History books
12

3. Hypothesis and Research question
Research question: To what extent can nonviolent revolutions bring regime change?
Hypothesis one
Null Hypothesis: There is no positive relationship between the use of nonviolent methods
and the success of a revolution.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between the use of nonviolent
methods and the success of a revolution.
Hypothesis two
Null Hypothesis: There is no positive relationship between the conduct of a nonviolent
revolution and the establishment of a democracy after that campaign.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between the conduct of a
nonviolent revolution and the establishment of a democracy after that campaign
Hypothesis three
Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between the degree of violence of a revolution
and the increase of GDP per capita after that revolution.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a relationship between the degree of violence of a
revolution and the increase of GDP per capita after that revolution.
Hypothesis four
Null Hypothesis: There is no positive relationship between the use of violence in a
revolution and the establishment of an autocracy afterwards.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between the use of violence in a
revolution and the establishment of an autocracy afterwards.
14

4. Methodology
The research presented in this paper is composed of two studies: a quantitative one and
a qualitative one.
This essay based its argumentation upon a quantitative study, as doing a quantitative
research constitutes the most objective method to prove our hypothesis. An advanced
quantitative analysis is necessary to be able to establish patterns and determine whether
there is any existing causal relationship between the chosen independent and dependent
variables.
The paper also presents two case studies to illustrate and reinforce the righteousness of our
claim. The two examples of revolutions used for the case study have been purposely
selected: they are both outside my dataset and are well-known revolution cases.
4.1 For the Quantitative research
To constitute my dataset, I analysed a sample constituted of 72 revolutions that
happened in Asia and Africa from 1930 to 1999. The dates have been strategically chosen.
The year 1930 marks an important moment in the History of nonviolent revolutions for it
corresponds to Gandhi’s major civil resistance act considered as an inspiration for many
pacifist fighters. I chose to study revolutions that had occurred in Africa and Asia until the
year 1999, because those two continents were shaped during that period of time.
Furthermore, focusing on those years allows us to study a sufficient number of nonviolent
revolutions from which we can draw out the common trend of well-led nonviolent
revolutions. I only focused on rebellions that happened in Africa and Asia, as they are the
regions that have known the most conflicts over the last decades. Hence, finding out what
15

type of revolutions could be successful and at what degree they could be so, in those parts
of the world, seemed very interesting from a researcher standpoint. Moreover, studying
whether the often-neglected nonviolence method could bring substantial results to conflicts
happening in the poorest continents of the world is a Development issue that each
International Relations student should be concerned about.
Chenoweth and Shock observed that revolutions are rarely strictly nonviolent but they are
characterized as such because the methods used during the campaigns are mostly
nonviolent (Shock and Chenoweth, 2015). Hence, the first problem that emerged with my
research was to determine for each of the rebellion cases whether they were predominantly
nonviolent or violent. For this purpose, each case present in the database has been analysed
individually. For all the revolutions that scholars had characterized as mostly pacifist, I ran
another verification using the Global Nonviolent Action Database to see whether they were
present in it. Then, I emailed Dr Chenoweth to ask her whether she could send me the data
that she used for her research, and she had the amiability to forward it to me. I had
recourse to her database as a final checkpoint.
4.1.1. Interpreting the dataset
When a revolution was qualified as being largely violent, I coded it 0 and when a
revolution was qualified nonviolent, I coded it 1.
To determine if the revolutions had been successful or not I went through the same process.
I read what the existing literature had to say about each revolution then I verified my
information with Chenoweth’s database. I considered successful a rebellious movement
that had managed to overthrow the head of state. If, due to the revolution, the government
had been partially changed but the head of state had remained at his position, I considered
16

it a failure. I coded successful revolutions 1 and non-successful ones 0. I added this variable
in my database to see whether I could obtain the same results as Chenoweth and Stephan
and prove that in Africa and Asia, from 1930 to 1999, Nonviolence was a more efficient
tactic than violence to change a political regime. However, as the aim of this paper is not
only limited to prove that Nonviolence is an efficient technic but that it is the only successful
one for regime change, I included other variables in my dataset.
Thereby, I observed whether civic resistance was more prone to install a democratic system
in a country than violent methods were. For the accuracy of my data, I used the Polity IV
project of the Centre for Systemic Peace, which displays the different levels of democracy
that countries have had from 1946 to 2013. According to the legend of the document, a
country that has a Polity score of 6 and above is a full democracy (Marshall, 2013). Hence,
by looking at the end date of every revolution, I was able to determine whether the
revolution brought a democratic regime in power. I coded 1 the countries that had become
democratic and 0 the countries that had not. For all the revolutions in my dataset that
ended before 1946, I effectuated researches on each of them to know how scholars were
labelling the different regimes put in place. Besides, knowing that an efficient political
government should allow economic growth for its country, I added a GDP per capita
variable. Then, I looked at the fluctuations of the GDP per capita for every country from two
years before the beginning of the revolution to two years after the end of the revolution. If
the country was better off economically after the revolution, I coded it 1. If a country had
known a decrease in GDP per capita in comparison to the years that preceded the
revolution, I coded it 0. I obtained information on the fluctuations of GDP per capita for
each country on the “Historical statistics of the world Economy dataset” (Maddison, 2008).
Then, once I obtained my complete dataset, I copy pasted it on the software Stata and ran 5
17

logistic regressions. I primarily wanted to find out whether the use of nonviolence had an
influence on the likelihood of winning a revolution. I chose the variable successful/not
successful for my dependent variable and nonviolent/violent revolutions as my independent
variable, to determine it. Then, I ran another logistic regression to determine if nonviolent
movements had an effect on the likelihood of establishing democracy in the aftermath of a
revolution. I chose the variable “democracy or not” as my Y, and the variable “violent or
nonviolent revolutions” as my X. I also observed whether the different types of revolutions,
violent/nonviolent, had an effect on the GDP per capita after the revolution. I chose GDP
per capita as my Y and nonviolent/violent revolutions as my X. Those studies were useful to
prove the effectiveness of nonviolent revolutions over violent ones but did not clearly
expose the problems occurring when using violent methods. I chose to add one more
variable to my dataset, entitled “Autocracy or not”. With the help of the Polity IV website, I
determined for each revolution whether they had resulted in bringing a dictator to power or
not. However, this study is different from the previous ones as I only looked at revolutions
that successfully accomplished their goals. Only looking at successful revolutions can allow
me to state, in case of a correlation between violent revolutions and autocracy, that the
success brought by violent methods is likely to be ephemeral as the country would still
suffer under this newly established government.
4.2 For the Qualitative Research
I also effectuated a qualitative study to make the readers clearly understand, in a
tangible manner, to what extent nonviolent revolutions can be successful and to what
extent violent revolutions can be unfruitful.
The first case study was an example of a ‘successful violent revolution’. The example was
18

the overthrown of Gaddafi by a rebellious movement. I specifically chose an event that
happened outside my dataset to prove that the findings of my quantitative research still
apply outside the period of time studied. Moreover, the Libyan revolution case study
perfectly depicts the situation that can occur after violent revolutions. My researches on the
topic proved that the success of that revolution could be questioned, as the country is less
stable now than it used to be (Cole and McQuinn, 2015).
Then, I looked at the case of the fight for Indian Independence. One of the pioneers of the
movement was Mohandas Gandhi. He is considered to be a Master of civil resistance but,
according to how I defined success in my dataset, the revolution led by him was a failure.
This case was interesting for my argumentation as even if his main action, the March of
Satyagraha, did not succeed in changing the government, it is argued that that March, and
his actions in general, really helped to make progresses and to positively impact the country
(Wilson and Blumenthal, 2008 p65). The two case studies help to convey the message that
even a “failed” nonviolent revolution is more efficient at successfully changing a regime
than a successful violent revolution.
19

5. Research Results
5.1 Quantitative Research
To base our argumentation on solid evidences and to be able to draw
conclusions that can be applicable on a series of revolutions, a quantitative analysis has
been done. Our dataset comprises seventy-two revolutions that are either considered
violent or nonviolent. Those revolutions have been chosen to constitute the dataset as they
all occurred in Africa or Asia, between 1930 and 1999, and they all had for final goals to
remove the presidents in power. Among those seventy-two rebellions, fifty-one of them are
characterized as violent and the remaining twenty-one are identified as nonviolent.
Researches that have been conducted about every single revolution present in the database
indicated that, as for the fifty-one violent revolutions, thirty-four of them succeeded in
achieving their goals while seventeen failed in doing so. In regards to the nonviolent
revolutions, sixteen out of a total of twenty-one managed to overthrow the head of
governments in place. From the figures given above, we can notice that more nonviolent
revolutions accomplished their aims than violent ones: 76% of nonviolent revolutions ended
in success while only 67 % of the violent ones achieved their goals.
20

Figure 1: Number of Violent and Nonviolent Revolutions in relations to their Outcomes
VAR 000005
Failures Successes
Successful or
unsuccessful
Count Count Count
VAR00004 Violent Revolutions 17 34 51
Nonviolent Revolutions 5 16 21
Total 22 50 72
Source: Dataset,SPSS
In order to obtain reliable evidences to base our thesis on, I conducted a
series of logistic linear regressions. By running test values, I was able to determine whether
there were any existing causal relationships between nonviolence and the likelihood of
“success” of a revolution.
Let me recall some ground rules that enable us to reject or accept the null hypothesis. The
first things that can be looked at to interpret the results are the coefficient of the regression
and the standard error. If the standard error, which is an estimate of the precision of the
model, is greater than the coefficient, it can be an indicator that the dependent variable is
not solely explained by the independent variable. For the regression analysis, the level of
significance is set at five per cent. Knowing that, we will need to look at the p-value and the
95% confidence interval. If the p-value is equal or greater than 0.05, then the p-value is
considered non-significant. Thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Also, if the p-value is
included into the 95% confidence interval, we cannot reject the null hypothesis (Davies and
Crombie, 2009).
5.1.1 First test: Evaluating the correlation between the likelihood of success and the
possibility of establishing a democratic regime after a revolution
21

This first test evaluated the possibility of a correlation between the variable “Success or
Failure” and the variable type of revolutions called “Violent or Nonviolent Revolutions”. The
dependent variable in this model was “Success or Failure” while the independent variable
was “Violent or Nonviolent Revolutions”.
22

Figure 2: Regression table between the variables: “Success or Failure” and “Violent or
Nonviolent Revolutions”
Sucessfulo~l | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
ViolentorN~t | .4700036 .5922291 0.79 0.427 -.6907441 1.630751
_cons | .6931472 .2970443 2.33 0.020 .1109511 1.275343
Source: Dataset, STATA
The regression table shows that the coefficient of the regression is bigger than the standard
error, 0.59 > 0.47. We can also observe that the p-value is greater than 0.05 and is included
in the 95% confidence interval. All those elements prove that the variable
nonviolent/violent is not sufficient to explain the likelihood of revolutions at obtaining
success in Asia and Africa. Thus, due to the results obtained, we failed to reject the null
hypothesis and, at this point, the essay is not able to state whether there is a positive
relationship between nonviolence and the chances to win a revolution.
However, to truly evaluate the extent to which nonviolence can or cannot impact regime
change, other tests have been run. Two variables have been added to our dataset to have a
clearer idea of what success can mean: establishment of a democracy after a revolution or
not and increase or decrease of the Gross Domestic Product per capita after the revolution.
5.1.2 Second Test: Evaluating the correlation between the likelihood of establishing a
democracy after a revolution and the level of violence of a revolution.
The regression table below shows the statistical analysis between the variable “Democracy
23

or not” and “Violent and Nonviolent revolutions”.
Firstly, by looking back at the dataset, it is possible to notice that out of the 21 pacifist
revolutions, 6 of them have led to the creation of democracies while only 1 violent
revolution contributed to the establishment of a democracy. Then, by observing the
regression table, we can see that the p-value is equal to 0.009, which is less than 0.05. Also,
the p-value is not contained within the confidence interval. Thereby, we can reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that there is an existing correlation between the type of campaigns
and the possibility of establishment of a democracy after the revolution. In other words,
those results confirm the findings of Ackerman, Karatnycky and Rosenberg who claimed that
a revolution that adopted nonviolent methods was more likely to establish a democratic
regime afterwards.
24

Figure 3: Regression table between the variables: “Democracy or Not” and “Violent or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typeofregimeafterrevolution | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
----------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
ViolentorNonViolent | 2.282382 .8681829 2.63 0.009 .5807752 3.98399
_cons | -3.198673 .7213932 -4.43 0.000 -4.612578 -1.784768
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1.3 Third Test: Evaluating the correlation between the Growth Domestic Product per
capita and the type of revolutions.
The GDP per capita is an economic measure that gives an idea of “the average income per
person in a specific country” (Pettinger, 2011). Therefore, if a revolution is claimed to have
brought success but the GDP per capita of the country has sharply declined, it is a good
indicator that the revolution is only allegedly successful.
If we observe the regression table for the variables “GDP per capita” and “violent and
nonviolent revolutions”, we can notice that recurring to civic resistance during a revolution
can allow the GDP per capita to increase more easily. This can be explained by the fact that,
in case of a nonviolent revolution, only one side can be armed; therefore, it causes less
material damages than if both sides were armed. For this case, the table shows that the
coefficient of the regression is equal to 1.56 and the standard error is 0.622; thus, the
coefficient of the regression is bigger than the standard error. In addition, the p-value is
lower than 0.05 and is not included within the 95% confidence interval. Hence, the null
hypothesis can be rejected and it can be claimed that the type of revolutions can impact the
increase or decrease of the GDP per capita.
25

Figure 4: Regression table between the variables: “GDP per Capita” and “Violent or
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDPPERCAPITA | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
ViolentorNonViolent | 1.564702 .6225168 2.51 0.012 .344591 2.784812
_cons | -.117783 .2805418 -0.42 0.675 -.6676349 .4320688
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1.4 Evaluating the correlation between the likelihood of having an autocracy or not after
a revolution and the degree of violence used during the campaign.
Furthermore, it is possible to observe, in the dataset produced, that out of the 51 successful
revolutions, 25 of them led to the arrival of an autocrat in power. If a revolution establishes
a government that does not respect the fundamental liberties of its citizens, then it cannot
be legitimately claimed that this revolution managed to secure a real victory. To find out
more about the issue, we ran another logistic regression, which only considered revolutions
that had been successful. We added a variable called “autocracy or not” that we took as the
dependent variable and we selected the variable “violent or not violent revolutions” as our
independent variable.
26

Figure 5: Regression Table between the Variables: “Autocracy or Not” and “Violent or
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autocracy or not | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
Violentor Non Violent | -1.94591 .7312992 -2.66 0.008 -3.37923 -.5125901
_cons | .4795731 .3529053 1.36 0.174 -.2121085 1.171255
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regression table showcases that the p-value is largely inferior to 0, which means that
the results found here are significant. Furthermore, the p-value is outside the limits given by
the 95% confidence interval. Besides, we can observe that there is a negative correlation
between nonviolence and the establishment of an autocracy. However, the standard error is
an extremely high standard error. Therefore, we can argue with reserve that violent
revolutions are more likely to bring a dictator in power than civic resistance. Those results
strengthen our argumentation as they prove that Nonviolence fosters peace but also that
violent movements, even those that seem to be successful, favour the arrival of autocracies.
5.2 Interpretation of the results
Evaluating the success or failure of a nonviolent revolution by verifying
whether that nonviolent revolution overthrew the head of state is a very superficial way to
look at the topic.
The results of my quantitative analysis prove that the chosen type of campaigns can have
large impacts on the prosperity of a new regime.
In our example, limiting “success” to the removal of the head of state or not was a good
indicator for the impact that civil resistance can have on the likelihood of a revolution to
succeed. Nevertheless, it did not allow us to confirm the assumption that nonviolent
campaigns were more effective than violent ones. The extent of the impacts that nonviolent
27

revolutions can have was not fully grasped. However, adding other variables to our study
yielded better materiel to understand the degree of success that nonviolent actions can
achieve. Baring in mind that finding significant results to our tests does not constitute an
indisputable warranty but it is a solid indicator that nonviolence works (Davies and Crombie,
2009). Thereby, the research does not only reiterate Chenoweth’s findings but also clearly
demonstrates the possible tremendous impacts that nonviolent revolutions can have. By
digging into the question what are the elements that characterize a successful regime, we
can notice that they are all more likely to be brought by a nonviolent revolution.
5.3 What makes Nonviolent Revolutions efficient?
According to Vucic, two important elements trigger the success of a
nonviolent movement: the relation between the rebels and the non-governmental
organizations or civil institutions of the country on one hand, and the capacity of a
revolution to attract public attention on the other hand. In his book, Vucic echoes the idea
of Kurt Shock, who is a Doctor in Sociology and a well-known researcher in the field of
Nonviolence (Vucic, 2010, p1).
If the first cause enunciated by Vucic does not get a lot of attention from other authors that
have focused their writings on Nonviolence and Pacifism, all the scholars agree on the
importance of the second factor mentioned. It is argued that it is primordial for a nonviolent
movement to succeed in rallying many people to their cause for the bigger the movement is,
the more it heightens pressures exerted on a government. Also, civic resistance is more
likely to attract international participation and generate massive rebellion movements as
people are more comfortable with the idea of joining civic resistance whether it be for
religious, moral or physical reasons (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2008). For Gandhi, a
28

successful nonviolent revolution should not directly aim at changing a general issue but
rather it should concentrate on solving specific issues one after the other (Sharma, n.d.).
This way of operating allows nonviolent campaigns to progressively limit the power of the
head of government until his or her complete overthrown (Sharp, 2013). In addition,
nonviolent revolutions attack the system in place but offer room to its opponents to
abandon their vision and join nonviolent activists in their cause (Roedel, 2009, p224)
whereas in the case of violent revolutions, the government has no time to analyse any claim
emitted by the activists and can only counterattack. Gene Sharp, who is one of the big
advocates of Nonviolence, clearly summarizes the main factors that explain the
effectiveness of civic resistance over violent revolutions (Sharp, 2013). To start, he claims
that only nonviolence can make opponents change their minds and make them join the side
of the revolutionary activists. Then, he argues that because all the demands of nonviolent
activists are asked in a peaceful manner, it leads the members of governments to
accommodate more easily to the demands of the opposition even if they have not changed
their minds. Another reason for which nonviolent campaigns are more successful than
armed conflict is that they exert more coercion on the governments (Sørensen, 2015).
According to Gene Sharp, it is the compliance of the population to the rules established by a
government that gives the said government authority and legitimacy (Sharp, 2013). Hence, a
nonviolent revolution really affects the rulers, as well–led nonviolent campaigns attract
more people than violent ones. Furthermore, the more people manifest against their
leaders, the more chances it has to attract media attention and by this way get the
international community involved. Besides when a government counterattacks a nonviolent
revolution with violence, this government faces the probability to be severely condemned
by the international community (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2008). Thereby, due to the
29

reasons mentioned above, a government will lose more and more of its autonomy when
facing nonviolent attacks and will end up handing over the power to the activists (Sharp,
2013). It has been observed that violent retaliations directed at a nonviolent campaign
backfire on the people who initiated them while increasing the chances for members of the
government to disobey and support the opposition (Hess and Martin, 2006). Hence, the
head of state is left facing a difficult problematic in which his or her use of violence cannot
be justified and in which he or she cannot be convinced of the support of his/her own
armed forces and civil servants.
The concept of Nonviolence has evolved over the years; it is no longer
conceived as a set of principles associated with religion and morality, as it was when Gandhi
brought to light this practice. Researchers, such as Girard and Sharp, have worked to show
the practicability and the necessary strategies that nonviolent activists should adopt in
times of oppression and conflicts. Nevertheless, it is argued that two types of Nonviolence
theory exist: Principled Nonviolence of Gandhi and Pragmatic Nonviolence developed by
Sharp (Gelderlos, 2007). Some contemporary advocates of Nonviolence argue that only
pragmatic Nonviolence works and that principled Nonviolence consisted simply on a set of
idealistic ideas. However, Gandhi and even one of his pioneers, Richard Gregg, have talked
about the different strategies that people should follow if they desire to win a revolution
while only recurring to civic resistance (Roedel, 2009). Certainly, Gandhi’s strategy was less
clear than the one that a rebel group following pragmatic Nonviolence would adopt but
claiming that he did not have any is another debate. However, this essay will not go in any
more depth about this controversy; the paper will not try to prove that one type of
Nonviolence is better than the other. This dissertation did not try to separate the facts that
it presented by attributing them to a specific type of Nonviolence but talked about
30

Nonviolence as an umbrella terminology. Differentiating which form of Nonviolence is
applied by a particular group of pacifist activists would have been controversial because the
gap between the two types is very narrow. However, basing our argumentation on the
results of our quantitative study on “Nonviolent actions” enables us to prove that
Nonviolence can work regardless of the reasons behind the use of it. Even though,
contemporary writers warn us that nonviolent movements do not use strictly pacifist
methods, the logic would be, as Clemens puts it, that the purest form of nonviolence
campaigns is more likely to bring more success. The reason being that the more peaceful the
revolution is, the more the attributes linked to a nonviolent revolution would be applied:
population largely joining the movement and more chances to attract media attention
resulting in more coercion exerted on the government. Nonviolent attacks affect a political
regime in a way that it is not accustomed with (Gregg, 1935). Richard Gregg stated that civic
resistance has the power to trouble a government in an unusual way and make the
opposition face the difficult situation of not knowing how to react (Gregg, 1935). When the
government counteracts by using force, regardless of the legitimacy or righteousness of the
nonviolent movement, the government is just exposed to the world as an unjust one.
Nonviolence can touch the international community and give rise to compassion over the
world. This essay is not claiming that nonviolent actions cannot fail, as big failures are
known like the revolutions that happened in China and Burma (Mallat, 2015). Yet, the paper
argues that if a nonviolent movement is well-organized and manages to rally a large number
of people to its cause, it might be the only way to secure a long lasting regime change.
31

5.4 Critics of the effectiveness of Nonviolence
5.4.1 Realist Theory
Many Realists critic nonviolent ideas and argue that the practice of
Nonviolence is not an adequate method for the world we live in as states are either power
maximizers or security maximizers and using nonviolent methods makes them more
vulnerable to their opponents (Steger, 2003, p52). For John Dewey, who opposed
Nonviolence Doctrine, activists trying to combat violence without using force are engaged in
a pointless revolution destined to failure, as violence is an integral part of a country’s
behaviour (Howlett, 2008). Dewey was a contemporary of Tolstoy, who was a highly
spiritual man and a fervent advocate of nonviolence (Orwin, 2002). Dewey contradicted
Tolstoy’s claims by asserting that violence is often a necessity. However, as the essay
demonstrated and as Tolstoy argued, violence cannot be justified, as it is a less efficient
technique than nonviolence (Tolstoy, 1948). Yet, as Tolstoy pointed out, it is important to
mention that the practice of nonviolence requires utter bravery and steadfastness from its
activists as the temptation to use violence will always occur and seem more practical.
Nevertheless, if violence works, it can only be so in the short term (Tolstoy, 1948).
5.4.2 Contemporary opponents
Despite the publication of the recent researches of Chenoweth and Stephan, or even
of Ackerman, Karatnycky and Rosenberg, some political scientists still doubt that
Nonviolence can bring regime changes. They are convinced that, at least when fighting
against repressive governments, violent campaigns are necessary to overthrow the regime
in place. Thanassis Cambanis is a political researcher who rejects the assumption that
Nonviolence is a more efficient method than the use of armed forces. He effectuated a case
study on the Egyptian revolution of 2011. Many experts in the International Relations field
32

considered the 2011 Egyptian revolution as nonviolent. Cambanis reported that this
nonviolent rebellion has generated a lot of material disasters and caused the death of 846
people. Moreover, he criticized the fact that even after a year of battles, it did not succeed
in changing the government in power. He argues that if the rebels had used violent methods
from the start, the activists would have quickly achieved their aims: the government would
have been dismantled quicker. To cite him: “What if nonviolence isn’t the solution? What if
it’s the problem?” (Cambanis, 2011). He drew general conclusions from that case study and
encouraged political scientists to consider the positive results of nonviolent revolutions as
special isolated examples not as generalities. With this example of the revolution in Egypt,
he claims to prove Chenoweth and Stephan’s findings wrong. However, Chenoweth and her
colleague did not solely focus on nonviolent revolutions to declare them relatively
successful but they observed 323 revolutions that were both violent and nonviolent. It is
only from the results of that quantitative study that they were able to affirm that nonviolent
revolutions were more successful; no researchers had done that comparison before them.
Furthermore, basing an argumentation upon one single case does not enable anyone to
emit patterns. Besides, even by focusing on this single case, Cambanis omitted to envisage
the negative effects that a violent rebellion would have caused. We can argue with reason
that if opponents to the regime had opted for violent methods from the start, it could have
resulted in more deaths, more destroyed infrastructures and more people flying away from
their territory. There is also no guarantee that the revolution would have been quicker; in
the contrary, it could have turned into an endless war with both sides of the conflict
camping on their positions. Rather, as the paper demonstrated, the more violent the
revolution is, the more difficult it is for a country to adopt a democratic ideology in the
aftermath of the revolution or to see the living conditions of the inhabitants improve.
33

Furthermore, looking at the revolutions that happened in the same region, at the same
period of time, as for example in Libya, proves that even when the “goal” of the activists is
achieved, it can leave the population into terrible living conditions. One quote from
Clements perfectly illustrates our thesis and is a clear conclusion of what has been argued
before:
“The harm done by failed nonviolence fades into insignificance compared to the
harm done by successful or failed violence” (Clements, 2013).
34

6. Case study
In the second part of this paper, an analysis will be done over the Libyan revolution,
which is an example of a successful revolution that demonstrates that even a so-called
successful violent uprising cannot bring a prosperous regime change. Then, the paper will
focus on the case of the nonviolent Indian fight for Independence. That example shows that
even when the success brought by nonviolent actions is questionable, many positive
changes can still be noticeable.
6.1 Libyan Revolution
With the example of the Libyan revolution of 2011, we can understand that a successful
violent revolution can generate lasting harmful effects for the country in question.
This revolution started with nonviolent manifestations against the imprisonment of a
human rights lawyer. Nonviolent activists had for ultimate goal the departure of their
president Gaddafi and the liberation of political opponents. The response of the Libyan
government to those protests was violent. The events happening in Libya started to attract
a lot of attention from the international community. The injustices of the reactions of the
Libyan government were exposed to the world and people from Gaddafi camp itself started
to rally the rebels. It is said that two fighter pilots deviated from their supposed trajectory to
disobey the head of government’s orders (Britannica, 2015). However, the protesters
changed their tactics and decided to adopt violent methods to oppose the regime. From
that moment, clashes between the two sides escalated causing an increasing number of
victims and increasing damages within the country. Gaddafi’s forces controlled the capital
Tripoli, while rebel groups controlled eastern zones and some western cities. Despite foreign
35

help, especially from France, United Kingdom and the United States, the revolutionists
seemed to be unable to destitute Gaddafi. The African Union went to Libya to try to
establish peace talks with The Libyan president. This action resulted in the acceptance of a
cease-fire by Gaddafi but the rejection of the idea by the protesters, as it was not involving
the removal of the Libyan president. NATO continued to assist the regime’s fighters, who
succeeded in gaining control over Tripoli by launching some violent attacks there. After ten
months of combat, the revolutionists killed the Libyan president in one of his headquarters
in Surt (Britannica, 2015). NATO had already recognized the Transitional National Council,
TNC, as the governing power few months before Gaddafi’s death but with his actual
disappearance, TNC was the only authority in charge of the country. Militias started to freely
operate in different parts of the country (Laremont, 2013). The country became even more
dependent of its hydrocarbon sector than it was before the revolution (Chami, 2012).
Libya’s economy knew a sharp increase in the year following the revolution but then quickly
declined. The common view among scholars is that Libya is worse off than before. One
political scientist, Mustafa Fetouri, sadly depicted Libya’s current situation in the magazine
“Al Monitor”; he declared that the country is now left with no overarching authority.
Moreover, he stated that there is now little hope for the country to become democratic in
the coming years. The presence of jihadists is more and more noticeable (Fetouri, 2015). In
addition, before the rebellion, the living conditions of the inhabitants of Libya were quite
high, especially for an African country; health and education were accessible to everyone
but, following the revolution, it is no longer the case (Van Genugten, 2011). The country also
knows many shortages in essential commodities and has become a big importer of products
that it used to produce. Unemployment has risen and many people have departed the
country (Fetouri, 2015). Thereby, we can notice that the activists succeeded in achieving
36

their goal but they left the country in worse position than it was before. A revolution is
usually conducted in order to enhance the living conditions of the population and not in
order to create a poorer and more insecure environment. Violent revolutions can achieve
success but it will rarely be a long lasting one.
6.2 Indian Fight for Independence
The next case study, the Indian struggle for Independence, corresponds to a
renowned case of nonviolent revolution and will encompass all the main points of the
previous sections of this paper.
Gandhi, a major figure of the Nonviolence movement, is considered as one of the main
actors in the Indian fight for Independence (Panter-Brick, 2012). With this case study, it is
possible to analyse both the consequences of a nonviolent revolution and the ones of a
violent one. In 1921, Gandhi was chosen to rule over the Indian National Congress, an Indian
Political Party (Dehsen, 1999). Mahatma Gandhi began his rebellion on the commemoration
day of the Amritsar, in 1919. He started to outlaw the established rules by making illegal
salt. British authority had the monopoly of the salt production in India and imposed a heavy
tax on the salt (Kurtz, 2009). That economic measure had serious repercussions on the
Indian population, especially on the peasants for which the cost of life was becoming very
difficult to cope with. In 1929, Gandhi wrote a letter to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, threatening
him to launch nonviolent actions if the latter did not establish measures to enhance the
living conditions of the population (Kurtz, 2009). As he did not receive any favourable
answer, Gandhi started his major act of civil resistance for the fight for Indian
Independence, which is the March of Satyagraha (Kurtz, 2009). It was a long march on a 241
miles path, in which he was accompanied with peasants and other people from his party.
37

This action directly targeted British authority in India. It represented Gandhi’s way to show
his disproval of the salt tax and British presence in the country. With this action, Gandhi was
encouraging more people to disobey and produce salt. This march attracted the attention of
the International community. The British Empire wanted to stop the movements that were
happening in India and decided to imprison Gandhi. However, this act failed to stop the
rebellion. A poet activist, Sarojini Naidu, continued Gandhi’s work with the TNC and
organized peaceful manifestations against the Salt taxation (Kumar, 2014). Gandhi was
liberated in 1931 and invited to the United Kingdom at the round Table to talk about the
possibility of independence for India. Then, in 1940-42, Gandhi launched another
movement, called Quit India, in which he explicitly asked British rulers to leave the country.
Gandhi was often criticized for not organizing civil disobedience movements directly aimed
at the decolonization but it was part of his strategy (Kurtz, 1999). He targeted different
specific issues to progressively achieve a big goal for the future. This example would have
been considered a failure, if put in my database, as it did not directly overthrow the regime
in place.
However, even if the independence was delivered 17 years after Gandhi’s major action, his
work is still considered as one of the catalysers for Indian independence (Kurtz, 1999). The
proof is that, because of the March, the British colonizers started to envisage Indian
Independence and invited Gandhi to their round talk. Nevertheless, while Gandhi was
preaching to everyone that Nonviolence was the only way to obtain the desired results,
another important figure of the Indian political spectrum, Jinnah, did not share this point of
view (Panter-Brick, 2012). Jinnah was the leader of the Muslim League. He believed that the
use of violence was sometimes useful and necessary. Jinnah asked for the partition of India
based only on religion, as he desired to create a Muslim state (Singh, 2010). A terrible civil
38

war emerged in India. While Gandhi was militating for the Independence of a unified India,
Jinnah wanted to divide the country. The teachings of Gandhi were no longer followed and
violent conflicts burst between the two camps from 1946. The Muslim rebels were using a
lot of violence and often organized massacres of Christians. In 1947, the Independence of
India was granted but the country split in two. A Muslim independent state was created,
Pakistan (Singh, 2010). Pakistan’s struggle for independence, which was not violent, resulted
in the creation of a country that became an anocracy. India, meanwhile, became a
democratic country, which cherishes freedom ideas (Marshall, 2013). Moreover, on an
economical level, Pakistan did not grow as much as India did (Teslik, 2007). Even though
India cannot be considered a fully pacifist state today, since it is a possessor of nuclear
weapons, the country still observes nonviolent principles and strategies to solve some issues
(Guha, 2011). Another interesting point is that the international community sympathized
way more with India’s struggle for independence than they did with Pakistan’s (Teslik,
2007). Besides, the nonviolent fight for an autonomous India had repercussions in diverse
parts of the world. If Gandhi’s actions are claimed to not have directly contributed to India’s
independence, they were direct inspirations for nonviolent successful fights around the
Globe: the Black Americans civic rights fight in USA and the fight to end Apartheid in South
Africa (Kurtz, 1999). This case study shows that sometimes the outcomes of nonviolent
campaigns can even go beyond expectations as Nonviolence’s ideas and strategies can
touch people throughout the world and thus produce long lasting positive results, whereas
in the case of violent revolutions, even in the case of a success, the advantages gained by
the revolution are negligible compared to the harm the revolution has caused.
39

7. Discussion
This part of the essay will firstly reiterate my claim, and then show its limitation to finish by
exposing what further studies can be tackled in the future to broaden my findings.
7.1 What was my claim?
The results of my quantitative study have shown that nonviolent revolutions were more
likely to bring a democratic regime into power and to positively affect the GDP per capita
than any violent revolution could. The paper also found that violent revolutions were more
likely to bring a dictatorship into power than civic resistance could. This essay also claimed
that the material damages caused by violent revolutions are numerous; the damages are
material, physical, as well as emotional. The theory developed here was not only that using
nonviolence for a regime change was more effective than using violent attacks but also that
the use of nonviolence is the only long term efficient solution that can be adopted. The
response to our problematic to what extent can nonviolent revolutions bring regime change
is that civic resistance is the only method able to bring full success and establish a functional
regime that will foster prosperity in the country.
7.2 What are the limitations of my claim?
The paper considers nonviolent all the revolutions that scholars have estimated to be
relatively nonviolent. No specific study has been effectuated to find out if any strictly non-
violent revolution had occurred over the years and what was its outcome. Knowing that
nonviolent revolutions are more successful than violent ones, it could have been pertinent
40

to produce another study, only focused on nonviolent revolutions. If all conditions for
successful nonviolent revolutions were united, it could have been interesting to analyse
whether revolutions that had strictly used nonviolent methods were more successful than
revolutions that were only predominantly nonviolent. This preoccupation falls into the
nonviolent debate mentioned in my Research section. Does the theory of Nonviolence
taught by Gandhi really differ from the Nonviolence theory taught nowadays? If yes, how
can the purest form of Nonviolence bring regime change? Some argue that it is because
nonviolent movements do not purely use nonviolent technics that they succeed (Mukherjee,
2010). However, if the use of violence were the determining factor for success, strictly
violent rebellions would have succeeded even more; yet, it is not the case. Hence, studying
movements that adopt strictly nonviolent methods and the impacts that they can have on
their societies, can constitute advancement in the field of International Relations.
7.3 For the future?
Our database indicates that the number of nonviolent revolutions sharply rose in the past
few years, since the 1960’s. At that period of time, wars between countries were decreasing
while civil wars were increasing. Scholars looked for new methods to fight this new type of
wars and increasingly turned their focus on the theory of Nonviolence (Chenoweth and
Lawrence, 2010). Steven Pinker even argues in his book “The better Angels of our Nature:
Why Violence has declined” that we are living in the most peaceful years that the world has
known. However, despite this growing interest for Nonviolence, its practicability still
remains unknown to the common man. Despite all the researches that have been done,
which have proven that nonviolent revolutions were more effective than violent ones at
41

achieving their goals and removing a head of state from power, the theory of Nonviolence is
still not incorporated into school programs. Why do we persist in living in a violent-
dominated culture, in which violence seems to be the most natural and logical method to
adopt in the case of oppression by a state over its population? Violence is still the option
firstly considered by people if they want to change their government (Gorsevski, 2004). How
different could the world become if we let children know all the benefits that can be gained
from the practice of Nonviolence? Making people understand the extent to which
nonviolent actions are successful at bringing a regime change is definitively an important
task for the future.
42

8. Conclusion
This dissertation focuses on the question to what extent can nonviolent revolutions bring
regime change. After a study of several revolutions that have happened in Africa and Asia
from 1930 to 1999, we came to the conclusion that civic resistance was more likely to lead
to democracy and increase the GDP of a country in the aftermath of the revolution than
violent rebellions. The dataset has also shown that violent revolutions often favoured the
arrival of a dictator in power. Therefore, even for successful cases of violent revolutions in
which the activists succeeded in changing the head of state, it did not mean that the country
was leaning towards achieving political stability and growth. Therefore, the paper claims
that only nonviolent revolutions can fully ensure a regime change, are they are the type of
revolutions most able to foster peace after a conflict. Our claim was confirmed by the
analysis of the Libyan revolution of 2011. The revolution that happened in Libya was
successful, as it dethroned Gaddafi; nevertheless, the country was left in worse conditions
and with more insecurity than before the rebellion. Opposite findings were found when
studying India’s nonviolent struggle for Independence. The fight for Independence can be
considered as one of the failures of Nonviolence actions as it did not directly lead to the
independence of the country. Yet, many positive outcomes resulted from that fight. The
impact of the nonviolent movement there surpassed the borders of the Indian Territory and
influenced several nonviolent campaigns around the world. As for India, it became a
democracy from the moment independence was granted until today. Thereby, failed
nonviolent revolutions can still profit a country and still benefit the country in one way or
another, which is less likely to be the case for violent struggles. Thus, there are no tangible
reasons to choose to opt for a violent attack over a nonviolent one. The costs of a violent
43

revolution seem to always outweigh the benefits of one. However, we could not help but
notice that despite the scientifically proven positive impacts of nonviolence, we still live in
an era of violence in which recurring to armed forces is considered the norm. A real work is
needed to start teaching the young generation the effectiveness of civic resistance. To
finish, let’s cite Gandhi: “I oppose all violence because the good it does is always temporary
but the harm it does is permanent” (Clements, 2015).
44

Bibliography
For the “Clarifying terms” part:
• Britannica. Civil Disobedience [online],
• Available from: http://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience, [Accessed on
the 21st
of March 2016].
• Sharp, G.(1973).The politics of Nonviolent Action [online]. Available from:
http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/resources/nonviolent/methods.php [Accessed
on the 24th of February 2016].
• Oxford, Regime Change [online], Available from:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/regime-change ,[accessed on
the 21st March 2016].
• For the “Abstract”:
• Alhoff, F., Evans, NG. and Henschke, A.(2013). Routledge Handbook of Ethics and
War: Just War Theory in the 21st
Century, Routledge, London.
• Chenoweth, E & Stephan (2008). Why civil Resistance works, International Security,
vol33, n1.
For the “Introduction”:
• Karatnycky, A., Ackerman, P., and Rosenberg, MY. (2005). How Freedom is Won:
From Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy, Freedom House, Washington.
For the “Literature Review”:
• Lawrence, A., and Chenoweth, E., (2010). Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state
Actors in Conflict, The MIT Press, London, p. XII.
• Sharp, G.(2005) Waging Nonviolence Struggle:20th
century practice and 21st
Century
Potential. Extending Horizons Books, Manchester.
• Sharp, G.(1980). The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part Three Dynamics of
Nonviolent, Porter Sargent Publishers New York.
• Sharp, G.(2012). From Dictatorship to Democracy, Serpent’s Tail, London.
• Sharp, G.(2011). Dictionary of Power Struggle: Language of Civil Resistance in
Conflicts, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Sharp, G.(1973).The Politics of Nonviolent Action: The Methods of Nonviolent Action,
Porter Sargent, New York.
• Kurlansky, M. (2006). 25 Lessons From the History of a Dangerous Idea, Recorded
Books
• McCarthy, C. (2002).I’d rather teach Peace, Orbis Books, New York.
For the “Methodology”:
• Shock, K.and Chenoweth, E.(2015). Do Contemporaneous Armed Challenges Affect
the Outcomes of Mass NonViolent Campaigns?, Mobilization: An International
Quarterly, Vol 20,No 4, pp. 427-451.
• Marshall, MG. (2013), Polity IV: Individual Country Trends, 1946-2013 [online].
45

Available from: http://systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm [Accessed on the 21st
of
February 2016].
• Maddison, A (2008), Historical Statistics of the World Economy [online]. Available
from: http://www.google.co.uk/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjgga3x5o7MAhWFWBoKH
UZ8CDoQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ggdc.net%2Fmaddison
%2FHistorical_Statistics%2Fhorizontal-file_02-
2010.xls&usg=AFQjCNFFKKZ1UysTOutlY4NsZF9qwdu2Hg&sig2=pBXFQVlNLvxYigSK7B
AuMw [Accessed on the 28th
of January 2016].
• Cole, P., and McQuinn, B. (2015).The Libyan Revolution and its Aftermath, Oxford
University Press, New York.
• Wilson, JS. and Blumenthal, I.(2008). Managing Brand You: 7 Steps to Creating Your
Most Successful Self, Amacom, New York, p.65.
For the “Research”,
• Davies, HT. Crombie, IK (2009) What are confidence Intervals and p-values [online].
Available from:
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/what_are_conf
_inter.pdf [Accessed on the 1st
of March 2016].
• Pettinger, T. (2011), GDP per Capita Statistics,
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/343/economics/gdp-per-capita-statistics/ s
• Vucic, NP. (2010). A comparative study of the factors that contribute to the success
of non-violent revolutions, p1.
• Sharma, S. (n.d) Ghandian Strategy: The exclusive Mantra for solving problems, in
Modern Context http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/grelevance.htm
• Sharp, G. (2013). How Nonviolent struggle work?, Albert Einstein Institution, Boston
• Roedel, J.(2009). Sacrificial and Nonsacrificial Mass Nonviolence, Journal of Violence,
Mimesis and Culture, California, p.224.
• Sørenson, MJ. (2015). Responses to Nonviolent campaigns, Irene Publishing, Sweden.
• Hess, D. Martin, B. (2006). Repression, backfire and the theory of transformative
events, Mobilization, Vol 11, No1.
• Gelderloos, P. (2007). How Nonviolence protects the State, South End Press, New
York.
• Gregg, R. (1935). The Power of Nonviolence, Greenleaf Books, Hartford.
• Mallat, C. (2015). Philosophy of Nonviolence: Revolution, Constitutionalism, and
Justice Beyond the Middle East, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Steger, MB. (2003). Judging Nonviolence; The Dispute between Realists and Idealists,
Routledge, London, p. 52.
• Howlett, CF (2008), John Dewey and Peace Education, Encyclopaedia of Peace
Education,
• Orwin, DT. (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Tolstoy, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
• Tolstoy, L. (1948). The Law of Love and The Law of Violence, Dover Publications, New
York.
• Cambanis, T. (2011). Call to Arms [online], Boston.com. Available from:
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/07/31/call_to_arms/?
46

page=3 [Accessed on the 25th
of March 2016].
• Clements, KP.(2013). Principled Nonviolence is an Imperative and not an optional
extra [online], Converge. Available from:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/apf/dbml2013.pdf [Accessed on the 26th of
March].
For the “Case Study” part:
• Editors of Britannica,(2015), Libya Revolt of 2011 [online], Britannica. Available from:
http://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011 [Accessed on the 29th
of
January 2016].
• Laremont, RR. (2013), After the Fall of Gaddafi: Politic Economy and Security
Consequences for Libya, Mali, Niger, and Algeria [online], Stability Journal. Available
from: http://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.bq/print/ [Accessed on
the 2nd
March 2016].
• Chami, R. (2012), Libya beyond the Revolution: Challenges and opportunities
[online], IMF. Available from:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/dp/2012/1201mcd.pdf [Accessed on the 15th
of February 2016].
• Fetouri, M. (2015), Four years after Gaddafi [online], Al Monitor, http://www.al-
monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/10/libya-gaddafi-death-four-years-better-worse-
hrw-bayada-city.html [accessed on the 22nd
of January].
• Van Genugten, S (2011) Libya after Gaddafi [online]. Available from:
http://www.ies.be/files/documents/JMCdepository/Saksia%20van%20Genugten,
%20Libya%20after%20Gadhafi.pdf [Accessed on the 26th
of February 2016].
• Panter-Brick,S.(2012). Gandhi and Nationalism: The path to Independence, Tauris
&Co, London.
• Dehsen, CV. (1999), Philosophers and Religious Leaders, Oryx press, Phoenix
• Kurtz,L(2009),The Indian Independence Struggle[online], Nonviolent Conflict.
Available from: https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements-and-
campaigns/movements-and-campaigns-summaries?
sobi2Task=sobi2Details&sobi2Id=17 [accessed on the 3rd
of March].
• Kumar,A.(2014). Sarojini Naidu: The Nightingale and the Freedom Fighter,
Hachette[e]book, Gurgeon.
• Singh,J.(2010). Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence, OUP India.
• Teslik,LH.(2007).India and Pakistan at 60: A Tale of two Economies [online], Council
on Foreign Relations. Available from: http://www.cfr.org/india/india-pakistan-60-
tale-two-economies/p14036 [accessed on the 4th of April].
• Guha,R.(2011). Makers of Modern India, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Pinker,S. (2012). The better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has declined,
Penguin Group USA.
For the “Discussion” part:
• Mukherjee,R.(2010). Penguin Gandhi Reader, Penguin, London.
• Gorsevski,EW.(2004). Peaceful Persuasion: The Geopolitics of Nonviolent Rhetoric,
State University of New York Press, New York.
47

Chenoweth and Stephan’s dataset:
Available from: http://www.ericachenoweth.com/research
http://www.navcodata.org [accessed on the 02nd
of February 2016]
48

Appendices
Appendix 1: Data used to test Hypothesis 1
Begin End Country Violent or Non Violent Successful or unsuccessful
1930 1930 Vietnam 0 0
1930 Burma 0 0
1932 Thailand 1 1
1936 1939 Palestine 0 0
1937 1938 Turkey 0 0
1940 1947 Pakistan 0 1
1942 Sri Lanka 0 0
1943 Ethiopia 0 0
1946 India 1 0
1949 1957 Ghana 1 1
1952 Egypt 0 1
1952 1952 Lebanon 1 1
1954 1962 Algeria 0 1
1955 1972 Sudan 0 1
1956 1962 Tibetan 0 0
1959 1960 Japan 1 1
1959 1964 Malawi 0 1
1959 1962 Rwanda 0 1
1960 1960 South Korea 1 1
1961 1970 Iraq 0 0
1961 1991 Eritrea 0 1
1961 1974 Angola 0 1
1962 1962 Burma 0 1
1962 1970 Yemen 0 1
1962 1976 Oman 0 0
1963 Iran 1 0
1963 1963 Syria 0 1
1964 1965 Congo 0 1
1964 Tanzania 0 1
1964 1979 Zimbabwe 0 1
1964 1964 Sudan 1 1
1964 1974 Mozambique 0 1
1966 Ghana 0 1
1967 1970 Nigeria 0 0
1968 1969 Pakistan 1 1
1971 1971 Pakistan 0 1
1972 1972 Benin 0 1
49

1973 Afghanistan 0 1
1973 1973 Thailand 1 1
1974 1991 Ethiopia 0 1
1975 1979 Cambodia 0 0
1975 1975 Laos 0 1
1975 1990 Lebanon 0 0
1975 1975 Bangladesh 0 1
1975 Cape verde 0 1
1978 1978 Afghanistan 0 1
1978 1979 Iran 0 1
1978 1979 Cambodia 0 1
1979 South Korea 0 1
1980 1989 Turkey 0 1
1982 Bangladesh 1 1
1983 Burkina Faso 0 1
1983 2009 Sri Lanka 0 0
1983 1986 Philippines 1 1
1983 2005 Sudan 0 1
1986 1991 Somali 0 1
1987 1989 Tibet 1 0
1988 1990 Burma 1 1
1989 China 1 0
1990 1995 Mali 0 0
1990 1990 Mongolia 1 1
1990 1992 Madagascar 1 1
1991 1997 Niger 0 1
1991 Iraq 0 0
1991 2002 Sierra Leone 0 0
1992 1992 Thailand 1 0
1992 1993 Malawi 1 1
1996 2006 Nepal 0 1
1998 Indonesia 0 1
1999 East Timor 0 0
50

Appendix 2: Data used to verify Hypothesis 2
Begin End Country Violent or Non Violent Democracy or not
1930 1930 Vietnam 0 0
1930 Burma 0 0
1932 Thailand 1 0
1936 1939 Palestine 0 0
1937 1938 Turkey 0 0
1940 1947 Pakistan 0 0
1942 Sri Lanka 0 0
1943 Ethiopia 0 0
1946 India 1 0
1949 1957 Ghana 1 0
1952 Egypt 0 0
1952 1952 Lebanon 1 0
1954 1962 Algeria 0 0
1955 1972 Sudan 0 0
1956 1962 Tibetan 0 0
1959 1960 Japan 1 1
1959 1964 Malawi 0 0
1959 1962 Rwanda 0 0
1961 1970 Iraq 0 0
1961 1991 Eritrea 0 0
1961 1974 Angola 0 0
1962 1962 Burma 0 0
1962 1970 Yemen 0 0
1962 1976 Oman 0 0
1963 Iran 1 0
1963 1963 Syria 0 0
1964 1965 Congo 0 0
1964 Tanzania 0 0
1964 1979 Zimbabwe 0 0
1964 1964 Sudan 1 0
1966 Ghana 0 0
1967 1970 Nigeria 0 0
1968 1969 Pakistan 1 0
1971 1971 Pakistan 0 0
1972 1972 Benin 0 0
1973 1973 Thailand 1 0
1974 1991 Ethiopia 0 0
1975 1979 Cambodia 0 0
51

1975 1975 Laos 0 0
1975 1990 Lebanon 0 0
1975 Cape verde 0 0
1978 1979 Iran 0 0
1978 1979 Cambodia 0 0
1980 1989 Turkey 0 0
1982 Bangladesh 1 0
1983 2009 Sri Lanka 0 0
1983 2005 Sudan 0 0
1986 1991 Somali 0 0
1987 1989 Tibet 1 0
1988 1990 Burma 1 0
1989 China 1 0
1990 1995 Mali 0 1
1990 1990 Mongolia 1 1
1991 1997 Niger 0 0
1991 Iraq 0 0
1992 1992 Thailand 1 1
1992 1993 Malawi 1 1
1996 2006 Nepal 0 0
1998 Indonesia 0 1
1999 East Timor 0 0
52

Appendix 3: Data used to test hypothesis 3
Begin End Country Violent or Non Violent GDP PER CAPITA
1930 1930 Vietnam 0 0
1930 Burma 0 0
1932 Thailand 1 1
1936 1939 Palestine 0 0
1937 1938 Turkey 0 0
1940 1947 Pakistan 0 0
1942 Sri Lanka 0 0
1943 Ethiopia 0 0
1946 India 1 0
1949 1957 Ghana 1 1
1952 Egypt 0 0
1952 1952 Lebanon 1 1
1954 1962 Algeria 0 1
1955 1972 Sudan 0 0
1956 1962 Tibetan 0 0
1959 1960 Japan 1 1
1959 1964 Malawi 0 1
1959 1962 Rwanda 0 0
1961 1970 Iraq 0 1
1961 1991 Eritrea 0 1
1961 1974 Angola 0 0
1962 1962 Burma 0 1
1962 1970 Yemen 0 1
1962 1976 Oman 0 1
1963 Iran 1 1
1963 1963 Syria 0 0
1964 1965 Congo 0 1
1964 Tanzania 0 1
1964 1979 Zimbabwe 0 1
1964 1964 Sudan 1 0
1966 Ghana 0 0
1967 1970 Nigeria 0 1
1968 1969 Pakistan 1 1
1971 1971 Pakistan 0 1
1972 1972 Benin 0 0
1973 1973 Thailand 1 1
1974 1991 Ethiopia 0 0
1975 1979 Cambodia 0 0
53

1975 1975 Laos 0 1
1975 1990 Lebanon 0 1
1975 Cape verde 0 0
1978 1979 Iran 0 0
1978 1979 Cambodia 0 0
1980 1989 Turkey 0 1
1982 Bangladesh 1 1
1983 2009 Sri Lanka 0 1
1983 2005 Sudan 0 1
1986 1991 Somali 0 0
1987 1989 Tibet 1 1
1988 1990 Burma 1 1
1989 China 1 1
1990 1995 Mali 0 1
1990 1990 Mongolia 1 0
1991 1997 Niger 0 1
1991 Iraq 0 0
1992 1992 Thailand 1 1
1992 1993 Malawi 1 1
1996 2006 Nepal 0 1
1998 Indonesia 0 0
1999 East Timor 0 0
54

Appendix 4: Data used to test Hypothesis 4
Begin End Country Violent or Non Violent Autocracy or not
1930 1930 Vietnam 0 0
1930 Burma 0 0
1932 Thailand 1 0
1936 1939 Palestine 0 0
1937 1938 Turkey 0 0
1940 1947 Pakistan 0 0
1942 Sri Lanka 0 0
1943 Ethiopia 0 0
1946 India 1 0
1949 1957 Ghana 1 0
1952 Egypt 0 0
1952 1952 Lebanon 1 0
1954 1962 Algeria 0 0
1955 1972 Sudan 0 1
1956 1962 Tibetan 0 0
1959 1960 Japan 1 0
1959 1964 Malawi 0 1
1959 1962 Rwanda 0 0
1961 1970 Iraq 0 0
1961 1991 Eritrea 0 1
1961 1974 Angola 0 1
1962 1962 Burma 0 1
1962 1970 Yemen 0 1
1962 1976 Oman 0 0
1963 Iran 1 0
1963 1963 Syria 0 1
1964 1965 Congo 0 1
1964 Tanzania 0 1
1964 1979 Zimbabwe 0 1
1964 1964 Sudan 1 1
1966 Ghana 0 1
1967 1970 Nigeria 0 0
1968 1969 Pakistan 1 0
1971 1971 Pakistan 0 0
1972 1972 Benin 0 1
1973 1973 Thailand 1 1
1974 1991 Ethiopia 0 0
1975 1979 Cambodia 0 0
55

1975 1975 Laos 0 1
1975 1990 Lebanon 0 0
1975 Cape verde 0 0
1978 1979 Iran 0 1
1978 1979 Cambodia 0 1
1980 1989 Turkey 0 0
1982 Bangladesh 1 1
1983 2009 Sri Lanka 0 0
1983 2005 Sudan 0 0
1986 1991 Somali 0 1
1987 1989 Tibet 1 0
1988 1990 Burma 1 0
1989 China 1 0
1990 1995 Mali 0 0
1990 1990 Mongolia 1 0
1991 1997 Niger 0 0
1991 Iraq 0 0
1992 1992 Thailand 1 0
1992 1993 Malawi 1 0
1996 2006 Nepal 0 0
1998 Indonesia 0 0
1999 East Timor 0 0
56

Risk Assessment Form
IMPORTANT NOTE: This version of the Risk Assessment Form is only for the dissertation projects
which do not involve human participants, including the analysis of existing secondary data.
If your dissertation project involves human participants, including the analysis of existing secondary
data, you must apply for ethical approval via ERGO.
• Please see Guidance Notes for completing the risk assessment form at the end of this document.
Researcher’s name:
Part 1 – Dissertation/project activities
What do you intend to do? (Please provide a brief description of your project and details of your
proposed methods.)
I will do a research on the topic: To what extent can non-violent direct revolutions bring regime
change? Focus in Asia and in Africa from 1930 to 2011. I will argue that only non-violent revolutions
can be fully ‘successful’ to change a political system, which will be fair and democratic.
Will this involve collection of information from other people? (In the case of projects involving
fieldwork, please provide a description of your proposed sample/case study site.)
No
If relevant, what location/s is/are involved? NA
Will you be working alone or with others? Alone
Part 2 – Potential safety issues / risk assessment.
Potential safety issues arising from proposed activity? No
Person/s likely to be affected? No one.
MICHELE NDEDI
57

Likelihood of risk? No risk.
Part 3 – Precautions / risk reduction
Existing precautions: No need to take any precautions.
Proposed risk reduction strategies if existing precautions are not adequate: NA
CONTINUED BELOW …
58

Part 4 – International Travel
If you intend to travel overseas to carry out fieldwork then you must carry out a risk assessment for
each trip you make and attach a copy of the International Travel form to this document
Download the Risk Assessment for International Travel Form
Guidelines on risk assessment for international travel at can be located at:
www.southampton.ac.uk/socscinet/safety (“risk assessment” section).
Before undertaking international travel and overseas visits all students must:
• Ensure a risk assessment has been undertaken for all journeys including to conferences and
visits to other Universities and organisations. This is University policy and is not optional.
• Consult the University Finance/Insurance website for information on travel and insurance.
Ensure that you take a copy of the University travel insurance information with you and know
what to do if you should need medical assistance.
• Obtain from Occupational Health Service advice on any medical requirements for travel to
areas to be visited.
• Ensure next of kin are aware of itinerary, contact person and telephone number at the
University.
• Where possible arrange to be met by your host on arrival.
If you are unsure if you are covered by the University insurance scheme for the trip you are
undertaking and for the country/countries you intend visiting, then you should contact the University's
Insurance Office at insure@soton.ac.uk and check the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.
Risk Assessment
Form for
International Travel
attached
NO (Delete as
applicable)
Supervisor’s name: Signature: Date:
Jonathan Havercroft 13/12/15
59

Guidance Notes for completing the risk assessment form
The purpose of assessing risks is to ensure everyone works safely. To carry out a Risk Assessment, ask yourself:
• How can the activity cause harm?
• Is it safe to carry out this activity without additional protection/support?
• If someone else is going to do the work, can they do it safely?
Activity
Give a brief outline of the activity/project including the methods to be used and the people to be involved
• Think about everything you are going to do, from start to finish.
• Ensure that you complete the assessment before you commence any work. If you are unsure if your proposed
work carries any risk, go ahead and complete the form as the process could highlight some issues which
otherwise may not have been aware of.
Potential Safety Issues
• Only list those hazards that you could reasonably expect to cause significant harm or injury.
• Talk to people who have experience of the activity.
• Will the activity involve lone working or potential exposure to violence? For more guidance see the Social
Research Association website at www.the-sra.org.uk under Staying Safe.
• Are there any significant hazards due to where the work is to be done?
Who might be affected?
• List anyone who might be affected by the hazards.
• Remember to include yourself, co-workers, your participants and others working in or passing through the
area of activity.
• Those more vulnerable or less experienced should be highlighted as they will be more at risk (e.g. children,
disabled people or those with medical conditions, people unfamiliar with the area of activity).
Precautions/Risk Reduction
• List the control measures already in place for each of the significant hazards.
• Is the hazard dealt with by the School Health & Safety Policy, or a generic safety method statement?.
• Appropriate training is a control measure and should be listed.
• Is the risk a low as is reasonably practical?
• List any additional control measures/risk reduction strategies for each significant hazard (e.g. practical
measures, training, improved supervision).
Risk Evaluation
• With all the existing control measures in place do any of the significant hazards still have a potential to cause
significant harm? Rank as Low, Medium or High.
Remember
• Risk Assessments need to be suitable and sufficient, not perfect.
• Are the precautions reasonable?
• Is there something to show that a proper check was made?
60

This information is based on “An Introduction to Risk Assessment” produced by the Safety Office and the Training &
Development Unit of the University of Southampton.
61

Michele Ndedi Final dissertation-v4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Michele Ndedi Final dissertation-v4

Similar to Michele Ndedi Final dissertation-v4 (20)

Michele Ndedi Final dissertation-v4