Non-Violent Revolution and Liberty - Essay Example

Non- Violent Revolution and Liberty Introduction Since time immemorial, ever since the permanence of man on earth, there are bound to be social injustices inflicted on the weak in the society. Social injustices occur when one part have the society have the notion that they are better than another section of the society and hence take this as an opportunity to oppress them. Ultimately, the oppressed are likely to rebel against their oppressors. When this takes place, there are two main approaches that it can follow. There can be a violent revolution or a non-violent revolution (Nepstad, 2011, 85). Revolutionaries to include people like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Adolf Hitler resolved to violence and bloodshed in order to accomplish their goals. On the other hand, revolutionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr., Dalai Lama and Mohandas Gandhi used non-violent means to include strikes, sit-ins and peaceful marches. Non-violent revolutions are normally characterized by the peaceful nature that they take rather than use of violence to get a reaction one expects. People who resolve to use this form of revolution often hope to set a better example to the future generations (Sharp, 2003, 183). If anything is to be determined from past revolution, one note that the society as a whole tends to benefit from non-violent revolutions than from violent revolutions. I do agree that non- violent revolutions work Non violence does not explicitly imply not partaking in violence; it can also be viewed as a way in which a person can use positive action as a way of resisting oppression and to bring about transformation in the community. Mahatma Gandhi once stated “The essence of non-violent technique is that it seeks to liquidate antagonisms but not the antagonists”. This can simply be interpreted to mean that non-violent revolutions aim to change the opponent’s point of view and win them over. It is a win-win situation. Revolutionists who use this method do so in inevitably they will be able to persuade their oppressors into seeing things from their perspective and that their point of view is right. Non violent participants do not seek out to harm their oppressors in any way. On the contrary, they are willing to suffer whatever it takes in order to bring about some form of change in the society. The reason as to why non-violence has such great fascination is because it removes the absurdity of trying to make the society more just and less violent place by using violence as a tool. If people are hoping to be a great leader, then it would be expected that they set the best example for their followers. Violence is not exactly someone would be proud to have followers over (Ram & Summy, 2008, 167). It is not just the lives that are lost that one should think about, but also the economic impact that use of violence will have on a country’s economy. Most violent revolutionist normally causes a lot of damage to the property. Some of the techniques that non violent revolutionists use include picketing, sit-ins, and hunger-strikes, holding vigils, civil disobedience, blockades, civil demonstrations and others (Smith & Braein, 2003, 29). With violence comes a lot of bloodshed and millions of lives can be lost before one can actually get the results that they expect. Non-violent revolutions do work in the end; the dilemma is that it takes some time before anyone can see any form of result. As humans, most people do not have the patience to what. People are suffering from injustice, starvation and slavery. How could someone possibly expect them to wait? (Smith & Lewis, 2012, 80). Gandhi preached and practiced “Satyagraha”, which can be interpreted to be mean holding on to the truth of “force -truth”. Gandhi never did disobey the laws at any point, not because of fear for the repercussion, but because of the mere fact that he was under the suppositions that it was for the betterment of the well-being of the community. Gandhi fought for the independence in India and told his followers to do whatever they could to make it difficult for the British rulers. However, he insisted that they never resort to violence at any point. The greatest achievement for Gandhi at the end of Gandhi’s revolution is that in the end, the British did not leave as enemies of Indians but rather as their allies. Martin Luther King Jr., while leading his revolutions, got his inspiration for using non- violence from Gandhi. He once stated that “Like most people, I had heard of Gandhi, but I had never studied him seriously. As I read I became deeply fascinated by his campaigns of nonviolent resistance. I was particularly moved by his Salt March to the Sea and his numerous fasts. The whole concept of Satyagraha…was profoundly significant to me…”(King, 2009, 81).He was fighting against slavery and racial discrimination. According to him, there were just laws in the community and unjust laws. He believed that humans have a moral responsibility to our leaders to follow the just rules set by them. However, according to research carried out over the years by studying the violent and non-violent revolutions that have transpired recently, the success stories were almost all from the non-violent revolutions. Various reasons exist as to why this may be so. First, non violent revolutions always attract a number of people willing to take part from women, old people and any other people who do not want the hustle of running away from the police and putting their lives at risk (Roberts & Ash, 2011, 72). They normally join under the assumption that all they have to do is pass around the message to other people about the atrocities being committed against humanity and hope to make a change in the society. The questions that violent revolutionaries need to ask themselves are whether in the end it was really worth it. When one plans a violent revolution, they are to expect two likely outcomes. Success, in which case the revolutionist and his followers have an opportunity to form an ideal world that they wanted. In case the revolution fails, live will have been lost for nothing and no significant impact shall have been made. In addition, even if a violent revolution is a success, the parties will end up bitter with a lot of resentment towards each other. At times, people seek out to try and come up with a solution in a peaceful manner without any form of violence. However, some oppressors may be so stiff about their point of view that revolutionists eventually resort to violence in order to get any form of result. When one thinks of violent revolutions, the first name that normally pops to mind is Che Guevara. Che was a renowned Cuba revolutionist, a globally recognized figure. Due to his disdain for the corrupt Argentine government, he dedicated his life to serving the people and fight against such an injustice inflicted on them (Anderson, 2010, 56). Many people know him for his efforts in overthrowing and rebuilding the Cuban government. To others, all he is a brutal and ruthless guerilla. This in a way tarnished the image of all his political achievements. Over the years, his own image has lost its true meaning due to the different perceptions people have of him. The media can also be held responsible for the blurred understanding of who Che Guevara really was. As much as he fought for justice, the methods through which he chose to do so may be the reason as to why people do not remember much about his achievements but much about the lives that were lost as a result if his revolution. Many people believe that non-violence is in a way a sign of weakness. I would dispute that by saying that it takes a lot of self restraint and strong will for someone to choose peace over and over again even when inhumane atrocities are committed against them. Violent people see their violence as a sign of power. In my opinion, the violence is just a sign of their weakness and the fact that they have to prove themselves to others further proves how weak they are. It is no secret that there are instance where non-violence may prove to be futile, but what makes us so sure that violence will prove to be any different. Conclusion In conclusion, whichever form of revolution that one seeks to venture in depends on their characters as individuals. The kind of revolution that one leads often shows who they are more than it shows who their oppressors are. Violence is never the answer, and it beats the purpose to fight violence with violence. The belief that violent actions are bound to bring about the change that non violent actions cannot is a bit preposterous (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011, 92). I believe that non-violent revolution would actually work, if only people gave it a try and were tolerant enough to wait for the results. In instances where non-violent action would not work I believe even the violent act would prove to be pointless. If revolutionists were more concerned about the welfare of their people than proving their manliness to their opponents, they may come to the realization that all things considered, non-violent revolutions works better than violent revolutions. Symbolic violence is nearly perpetually ineffective or counterproductive, precisely because it infers whatever force it has from implicit or explicit threat of revolution. Violence directed against the established authority or the government almost never bears any form of good results (Sharp, 2003. 105). Most violent revolutionists tend to fail, and when they succeed they come up with a new tyranny, often worse than the old because violence is the only way of life that they are used to. Therefore, one can say that violent revolution bears more harm than good for the community. Bibliography ANDERSON, J. L. (2010). Che Guevara: a revolutionary life. New York, Grove Press. CHENOWETH, E., & STEPHAN, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: the strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. New York, Columbia University Press. KING, M. (2009). Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.: the power of nonviolent action. Paris, Unesco Publ. NEPSTAD, S. E. (2011). Nonviolent revolutions: civil resistance in the late 20th century. Oxford, Oxford University Press. RAM, S., & SUMMY, R. (2008). Nonviolence: an alternative for defeating global terror(ism). New York, Nova Science Publishers. ROBERTS, A., & ASH, T. G. (2011). Civil Resistance and Power Politics the Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present. Oxford, OUP Oxford. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=801080. SHARP, G. (2003). The politics of nonviolent action 3. 3. Boston, Ma, Porter Sargent. SMITH, D., & BRAEIN, A. (2003). The Penguin atlas of war and peace. New York ; Toronto, Penguin Books. SMITH, D., & LEWIS, I. (2012). The Penguin state of the world atlas. New York, Penguin Books. SHARP, G. (2003). Power and struggle. Boston, P. Sargent. Read More