There are arguments for both violent and non-violent forms of resistance. In a recent study on civil resistance, Chenoweth and Stephan (2008) concluded that non-violent resistance campaigns have had a success of 53% compared with a 26% favorable result for violent campaigns (ibid). However I would argue that the specifics of these terms are far too broad. Instead there should be a scale of resistance, as what in many political ideologies could be deemed as violence may not be to others. Of course there are basic rudimentary definitions of political and institutional violence that shall be discussed in this essay, but it is how people associate themselves to that violence that is of most importance. The majority of people in developed countries will look toward state violence and deem it as either in the name of national security or they will speak out against it in the name of brutality or an excessive use of force. A state will only use excessive force when it knows it has lost all other power over the people it chooses to oppress; this has been evident in many revolutions or uprisings both violent and non-violent. .
This essay will concentrate on the Oaxaca rebellion in 2006. The government brutally suppressed non-violent actors within the rebellion as they broadcast to the rest of the nation lies and slander in order to alienate support away from the APPO (Popular assembly of the people of Oaxaca) campaign (Bayona, 2011).
There are several types of violence recognized within the theory of violence; Direct Violence as highlighted by Gultang (1971) seems representative of what most people would consider violence - an act that can be both individual or collective that seeks to maliciously harm another person or groups of people, be it through war, "rioting" and gang violence (collective); or murder, rape, domestic and gender-based violence (individual) (Gultang, 1990). It can however be argued that all violence is collective in that no single person will ever be affected by an act of violence if only indirectly.