By Christine Schweitzer

Social defense is a concept of non-violent resistance that was developed for specific situations - primarily for defense against military attacks by another country on one's own - or to defend against a coup d'état. In view of Germany's and NATO's plans for a massive defense build-up, this seemingly utopian concept is gaining new relevance.

Just at the beginning of the week, we read in the press: The Bundeswehr is to be realigned. In future, national and alliance defense will once again be of equal importance to foreign missions. Since 1989, Germany has generally been described as "surrounded only by friends"[1]. Now this perception of security seems to have changed. And while it was the Soviet Union before 1989, Russia is now seen as a threat.

So do we need a new deterrence policy? The willingness to wage a so-called "war by any means necessary" - including nuclear weapons? Even though we know that there can be no winners and no losers in such a war, as these weapons (and even modern conventional weapons - just look at the pictures from Syria) destroy everything that is supposed to be defended?

In view of this horror scenario, an alternative defense concept was developed early on after the Second World War: non-violent "social defense", which recommends methods of civil resistance. In view of the current plans of the German government and NATO for further armament, the idea of social defense needs to be brought back into the discussion

Basic idea: power comes from the people

The concept of social defense is based on an idea that is also enshrined in our constitution, namely that all power comes from the people. This means that it is based on the consent and cooperation of the governed. If this cooperation is withdrawn, then the basis of power collapses.

Applied to the case of military occupation, this means that it is ultimately the population of the country under attack that decides whether or not a (military) aggressor achieves his goal. It is not the territory at the country's borders that is being defended, but the self-determination of a society by refusing to cooperate. It is assumed that an occupying power or a putsching party will not achieve their goals if they are met with consistent non-violent resistance.

History of the concept

The concept of social defense was coined in the late 1950s by peace researchers (including Stephen King-Hall, Gene Sharp, Adam Roberts, April Carter and Theodor Ebert) who were looking for an alternative, non-military form of defense against the threat posed by the Warsaw Treaty, which they initially assumed without question. Later, the threat analyses on which they based their work changed. They included coups d'état and later the possibility of intervention by formerly friendly states[2].

After 1989, the academic debate on social defense became quieter. Even in the public debate, defense was no longer an issue, or at most took place "in the Hindu Kush"[3]. Alternative non-violent forms of defense were replaced by concepts of non-violent intervention in conflicts elsewhere. At the same time, however, a number of comparative scientific studies on civil resistance were published, which enormously enriched our knowledge of forms of non-military defense. For example, it has been found that over the last hundred years, nonviolent uprisings have been twice as successful as violent rebellions[4]. It also identified examples of communities that managed to escape war and protect their way of life without taking up arms[5].

These studies confirm what was already assumed and recommended in the publications on social defense, albeit based on the small number of case studies: Preparation for resistance, withdrawal of cooperation, resolute adherence to non-violence even in the face of massive repression, rather decentralized leadership structures are particularly significant as effective strategies of resistance. In other respects, they extend early research with important insights into how non-violent or civil resistance can function. For example, research on civil resistance points to the central importance of defecting security forces[6].

Conclusion

So far, there is no state that has decided to abolish its military and instead prepare for the case of social defense. There are some countries without their own military - Costa Rica and Iceland are perhaps the best-known examples. However, they have agreements with larger countries that guarantee "security" in the event of an attack. Iceland is even a NATO member. There have also been a few governments in the past that have temporarily engaged in social defense. Lithuania, for example, issued corresponding recommendations to its population in 1991. However, this was not motivated by pacifism; on the contrary, it was due to the fact that Lithuania had no military capabilities.

If we understand social defense as a concept that should be proposed in the political debate - in Germany, in all NATO countries and worldwide - as an alternative to military defense, then we face at least two challenges. The first is the reservation of the "unrealistic" - the conviction that "only force will help" continues to prevail - and the second is the lack of consent and willingness to disarm.

It therefore makes little sense to propagate social defense in isolation as an alternative. For one thing, the military has various legitimizations. Defense against an attack is only one of them. Secondly, social defense must be embedded in what I would call a comprehensive peace policy. A policy that applies universalist standards of action, that is aimed at common security and that understands peace as a condition for a world worth living in. In this context, it is important to point out that total disarmament does not necessarily mean being helplessly at the mercy of any aggressor. A comprehensive peace policy needs non-violent alternatives to armaments and the military in order to be convincing. Peace movements are often stronger at naming what they do not want than at outlining positive visions. But it is not only the economic and power-strategic interests of political and economic elites that stand in the way of the abolition of armaments and the military. Many people feel threatened and genuinely affected by wars and violence and therefore consider violence, including military violence, to be the last resort. This is why civil conflict management, forms of non-violent intervention in escalating conflicts, civil peacekeeping and social defense are so essential.

[1] This term was used by various politicians in the 1990s. See e.g. www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus173986742/Die-Probleme-der-Bundeswehr-sind-auch-unsere-Schuld.html.

[2] This collection of essays is recommended for reading up on social defense: Jochheim, Gernot (ed.) (1988) Soziale Verteidigung - Verteidigung mit einem menschlichen Gesicht. A handout. Düsseldorf.

[3] The phrase "Germany's security is also defended in the Hindu Kush" was coined by Defense Minister Peter Struck. See www.heise.de/tp/features/Die-Sicherheit-Deutschlands-wird-auch-am-Hindukusch-verteidigt-3427679.html.

[4] Chenoweth, Erica and Stephan, Maria J. (2011): Why Civil Resistance Works. The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Colombia University Press.

[5] Anderson, Mary B. and Wallace, Marshall (2013) Opting Out of War. Strategies to Prevent Violent Conflict. Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers; Saulich, Christina and Werthes, Sascha: Nonwar Communites, oder: die Vernachlässigung des Friedenspotenzials des Lokalen. In: Maximilian Lakitsch and Susanne Reitmair-Juárez (eds.): Zivilgesellschaft im Konflikt: Vom Gelingen und Scheitern in Krisengebieten, 131-158. LIT Verlag, Berlin, Münster, 2016.

[6] See e.g. Chenoweth, Erica & Stephan, Maria J. (2011) Why Civil Resistance Works. The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Colombia University Press; Nepstad, Sharon Erickson (2011) Nonviolent Revolutions. Civil Resistance in the Late 20th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.