Handling Resistance and Rebellion in your stories

As history has taught us; where ever there is a government, there will always be people trying uproot and topple it for whatever reason. But how do you present from both sides?

I mean, in the case of an evil dictatorship, the purpose of a rebellion is pretty simple and straightforward; a group of people who won't stand by while some tyrant uses armies and weapons to oppress them and want to fight back so that their home can be free again. But what if the government in question is actually benevolent; the Head of state treats his/her people fairly and makes sure they are safe. No one is oppressed, no one lives in fear. How could there be resistance and/or rebellion for that?

Four words.

Study the French Revolution.

Or the Russian one for that matter.

If the Head of State is benevolent and people are treated well and fairly, then it's pretty hard to have a revolution—after all, the spirit of rebelliousness stems from people being unsatisfied with some aspect of the government, regardless of what it is. There must be some conflict in order for a rebellion to appear, even if it is not with the majority. The only way I could think to pull this off without making one side the "bad guy" is for the rebellious elements to view the current status quo as stagnant or ultimately detrimental to the country's wellbeing—but still, there must be some sort of conflict.

Any case of insurgencies, popular uprisings, civil wars, even the modern-day peaceful revolutions. (See: Gene Sharp's writings, The Dictator's Learning Curve, the Arab Spring, etc.) Study them.

Really, as long as you remember to see both sides as human instead of being cardboard cutouts of good or evil, it won't be hard.

The US started a lot of revolutions during the Cold War just so we could remove people in power and put in dictators we like.

Well, there's rebellion as in a popular movement, rebellion as in a stage-managed popular movement being helped by interior or exterior forces with something to gain or an axe to grind, rebellion as in parts of the government attempt the overthrow of other parts, and rebellion as in a wholly artificial attempt by outside forces to overthrow the sitting government with a greater veneer of legitimacy than otherwise.

You could always go with religious differences. The government might be benevolent and treat people fairly, but it also enforces religious doctrine that runs contrary to the beliefs of some of its citizens.

I like to portray the revolution as a bit pointless and just as brutal as the previous regime. As history has shown us, most revolutions end with a new governing body that's just as bad, if not worse, than the previous one (mostly because people who revolt aren't always the most qualified to lead). Not to mention that even if things do pick up again (which there's no guarantee they will), the aftershock of a revolution lasts for months if not years, resulting in far more deaths in much less time on account of rioting, looting, and general lawlessness (not to mention lack of infrastructure).

Basically (and this is just my opinion), a revolution is only the solution to your problem when your current regime is in the Goldilocks area of "shit's fucked"-ness. If it's not fucked enough you'll do more harm than good, and if it's too fucked, then why bother causing more misery and suffering in a revolution that's not actually going to accomplish anything in the long run?

edited 26th Oct '14 2:43:16 PM by KSPAM

On the contrary, revolutions work best when your country is screwed enough to pass the Godzilla Threshold, because things are already terrible.

I don't think a popular revolution is possible in a society where everyone is genuinely happy, but any sort of division or unrest will do. Real Life provides almost limitless examples of successful and failed rebellions and their causes.

A society at the Godzilla Threshold doesn't rebel, primarily because it can't. Rebellion usually occurs when the oppression eases off a little or the economic/social circumstances change for the better and more oppression isn't applied to counteract it.

It does not occur at the nadir of a society because at that stage the social organization outside the government, the controls on wealth or physical items necessary to create a rebellion, and the controls on communication are too tight, and people are too busy trying to merely survive. When things get better, they start to hope; and then they rebel.

That doesn't describe any government that's ever existed, so... just don't write that kind of government into your work.

edited 13th Nov '14 6:06:37 AM by imadinosaur

Mary Suetopia ho!

More seriously, the decision to undertake a rebellion boils down to this: do I have a goal that can only be achieved by rebellion (i.e., peaceful means are exhausted) and a means to achieve that goal via the same (ie, enough resources to have a chance at success, enough popular support, a weak enough opponent)? If yes to both, then undertake resistance; otherwise, don't. Declaring war on a nation-state is a major undertaking, after all.

If neither precondition is in place, there won't be a rebellion. If life under a given government is regarded as generally good enough that living by its laws outweighs the dangers of violence, people will not opt for violence. (There might be some, but without popular support they'll fizzle out: the difference between a criminal and a revolutionary depends on how many people back them.) If there's something that needs to be changed and peaceful ways are available to change it, people will do that. And if the regime is too solidly entrenched to be moved by violent resistance, ditto. A smart revolutionary—who might not even start out as such—will target the parts of the government that are vulnerable; often, that part is its legitimacy, and the method of targeting it lies in nonviolent action: strikes, protests, subversive political comedy, civil disobedience, and the like. That's not rebellion either; and it has become increasingly popular these days as people recognize that while pitting violence against violence gives the advantage to the side with all the tanks and all the secret policemen, waging nonviolent insurgency gives the advantage to the side with the most legitimacy.

You know, if you put a little Grey-and-Grey Morality into it, it's kinda possible to have a somewhat benevolent government still being rebelled against.

Consider it as, the previous ruler or rulers were corrupt, and maybe a relative took over, like the kings son or daughter or whatever.

Now the new ruler is a good person, and has earned the respect of many people through attempts at internal reforms and fixing up the messes that were made previously.

That being said, a lot of people are just extremely bitter towards the government, due to past crimes, the fact that someone part of the old govt is in charge of the new one, and a lot of other shit like class issues.

The rebels keep rebelling cause they see this new guy as just doing token acts to placate the people until he goes full tyrant, or alternately, while they might acknowledge that said new ruler wants to make things better, they feel he or she is simply not competent enough for the job.

As a third alternative, they just believe he or she is a puppet of the previous regime, who is still running things with a more palatable face at the forefront.

Long story short, the rebellions continue, with the new guy having to not only take all the blame for the crimes of the old group, but deal with the criticisms of a popular uprising. Both sides have their support, and the country has a fuckload of problems because of it.

The key thing would be that both the rebels and the govt try to help the people, but simply can't come to a compromise for one reason or another.

That being said, something like that could only be kept up for so long I think.

Because Sabre's Edge reminded me, here's something to keep in mind: rebellions/insurgencies (depending on your characters' POV, of course!) don't go from zero to open warfare in the span of a microsecond. Generally, the rebels will start from a position of extreme inferiority relative to the state. If the state is able to bring the full weight of its capabilities to bear on the rebels, it will crush them, regardless of plot armour (or lack thereof).

Classically, insurgencies must first build support amongst the population for their cause, and they must never allow themselves to be drawn into a standing, "set piece" battle. Instead it is much more viable to conduct ambushes and stuff of that sort. The political will of the state must be eroded, as well as its physical armies. Once the state is weak enough, and support is at its peak, then rebellions transition into actual conventional warfare. Guerrilla warfare by itself rarely, if ever, secures the rebels' objectives.

Furthermore, don't fall into the trap that an insurgency winning is inevitable - in fact most end up failing (a prime RL example of which is the Malaysian Emergency). To risk belabouring the point, if the rebellion loses popular support, it will lose. If the rebellion is pinned down by the state or sustains serious casualties, it will lose. And so on and so forth. Don't be afraid to put your rebellious characters at a serious disadvantage compared to their opponents.

/rant over

Anyway, to return to the actual point of the thread, I think someone brought this up before, but you don't just have to make the government "good", you can also put some rather amoral characters into the rebellion and imply that things won't all be sunshine and lollipops if the rebels get into power (violent purging of the old state apparatus, anyone?).

Even more points on rebellions: factionalization.

Successful rebellions are usually successful because they managed to keep factionalization under control. Whether violent—American Revolution, Russian Revolution—or peaceful—Civil Rights Movement, Solidarity—the winners in the end are the ones who manage to keep the herd of cats all going in roughly the same direction, to use a metaphor.

The Russian Revolutions are particularly instructive. We all know who won: the Bolsheviks. What is often forgotten, and what the Party histories understandably did not focus upon, was that the Bolsheviks were not the ones who toppled the Czar. When the urban revolts broke out that threw out the Czar, the Communist Party was not the vanguard: it was caught up in the rush in utter surprise. The short-term winners were the much larger, much more popular Social Democrats, who installed Alexander Kerensky in power. The Bolsheviks, rather than achieving the impressive feat of knocking over His Imperial Majesty, instead came to power by kicking the much weaker, much less militant Social Democrat-dominated Provisional Government out of power—something they achieved through the distinction of being much more willing to fight, much more centralized (read: Lenin had near-dictatorial control over the Party, even accounting for fellow Old Bolsheviks like Trotsky and Bukharin), and much, much more extreme.

So, show that in a story. A rebellion isn't made of the same people all throughout; neither is the regime's side, especially if the ruler relies on a minority who will back him to the death because they fear reprisals from the majority. A successful rebellion can prevent that tendency towards splintering, keeping everyone together moving towards the same goal. That can be very difficult, so showing it actually working would be great to see.

In another example, much as we all like to think of Washington as the American Revolution's essential man (and he was), it was by no means a foregone conclusion he would have remained in command the entire war. Both Horatio Gates and Charles Lee actively plotted to subvert Washington's command of the Continental Army and eventually usurp it.

Ironically a major disaster was averted during the retreat from New York when a recalcitrant Gates was captured by the British. Then, when he was traded back and given command of the Southern Army, he removed himself once and for all by not only losing the Battle of Camden (badly) but fleeing in a blind panic in front of witnesses. Charles Lee took things to Chronic Backstabbing Disorder levels, where when briefly held by the British he tried to tell them how to beat Washington, was insubordinate at a distance a number of times, delibrately gave Washington bad advice and then blamed him for it to Congress, and finally it culminated in open and direct insubordination at Monmouth Courthouse.

Had either of these men been somewhat more savvy, the American Revolution could have taken a very different course.