Case’s (2018) analysis of unarmed violence during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution has advanced the argument for evaluating unarmed political violence within the context of civilian resistance movements. This response builds on that by referencing interview data from participants in the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolution, who described using both nonviolent and violent tactics. Applying these findings to Case’s criteria of mobilization, resilience, and leverage—derived from Schock (2013)—the Tunisian case reinforces Case’s conclusions. However, it also emphasizes the limitations of reducing nonviolence analysis to pragmatic or strategic components when compared to violent methods.

This is particularly significant in light of the constructive efforts in Tunisia to establish alternative political and economic structures, which were tied to what interviewees termed "aspirational nonviolence." They pursued goals rooted in dignity, suggesting a broader conceptualization of nonviolent action beyond mere strategy. While Case’s broader approach to civilian resistance, which includes unarmed political violence, is analytically sound, it’s important to recognize the scope for further exploration and application of enhanced nonviolent methods. This involves deeper engagement with moral considerations about political and economic organization, as well as the pursuit of nonviolent social revolutions.

Read Benjamin S. Case's article