What is Passive Defiance

Passive resistance or defiance is a way of protesting against a government or law by using peaceful methods such as refusing to obey laws or refusing to leave a place or building. This type of action highlights the desires of an individual or group that feels that something needs to change to improve the current condition of the resisting person or group. Nonviolent resistance is largely but wrongly taken as synonymous with civil disobedience. Each of these terms—nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience—has different connotations and commitments. the two categories of action cannot be identified with one another. 

Civil disobedience is a form of political action which necessarily aims at reform, rather than revolution. Its efforts are typically directed at the disputing of particular laws or group of laws while conceding the authority of the government responsible for them. However, passive resistance may fall within the banner of civil disobedience if it act meets the following conditions:

• The act violates the law,
• The act is performed intentionally and,
• The actor anticipates and willingly accepts punitive measures made on the part of the state against him in retaliation for the act. 

The concept of passive resistance is nothing new.  It is synonymous with non-violent protest marches from the 1960s in which people demanded equal civil rights regardless of the color of their skin.  In most of these cases, this was done without resorting to any form of violence and they got it. A good case in point is that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Gandhi and Nelson  Mandela among others.  

Does it Work?

While it is often assumed that violence is the most effective means of waging the political struggle, there are numerous examples in which organized civilian populations have successfully employed non-violent methods including boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized non-cooperation to challenge entrenched power and exact political concessions. The success of these nonviolent campaigns in countries such as Serbia, Madagascar, Georgia, and Ukraine, Lebanon, and Nepal suggests a paradigm shift is necessary for the Zimbabwean body politic. 

There is more likelihood of success for non-violent methods of resistance because:

1. Non-violent methods enhance domestic and international legitimacy

• Commitment non-violent methods enhance domestic and international legitimacy. It further encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target government, leader or whatever the case. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power. 

1. 
   
2. Violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime

• Given the propensity of despotic governments to easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining.