Enforcing Change through Nonviolent Means - Report Example

Nonviolence Name Institution Date Nonviolence Introduction The past decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of people who have directly or indirectly participated in in nonviolent action particularly of political nature. For some of these activists, nonviolent action is precisely an expedient approach for dealing with conflict and fostering social change; while for others, nonviolence is simply a moral imperative, or a way of life. As stated by Theodore Roszak, "People try nonviolence for a week, and when it 'doesn't work' they go back to violence, which hasn't worked for centuries." Nonviolence is an approach for resolving conflict that is often adopted because it has proved to work more often than violence (Weber, 1990). Additionally, the basic presupposition underlying this approach is that means essentially justify the end. According to Mahatma Gandhi, “Means are ends in the making.” Whichever way one may choose to look at it, strategic nonviolence has often emerged as a better option than violence, though it requires more courage and reason to prevail. Violence has more often than not appeared as a superior technique for finding resolutions to conflict particularly in consideration of the tangible strategies and weapons that are involved. Violent tactics have often been preferred over nonviolence, largely because it is relatively difficult to visualize nonviolent means to resolving conflict. Nonviolence has failed to be taken seriously especially because of the plentiful practical and moral dilemmas that are often raised and overemphasized by skeptics of the approach. Yet there are numerous reasons why nonviolence is a better option for resolving conflict than violence. Foremost, nonviolence is a tactic that is readily available for use by anyone. It is an approach that is least likely to cause alienation and indifference among opponents. By breaking the cycle of violence and counter-violence, the tactic effectively opens up the possibility of conversion. Additionally, there are higher chances of the strategy producing constructive rather than destructive end results. Nonetheless, its strength as a conflict resolution strategy is its ability to guide warring parties to a path of truth of a given situation, as it is arguably the only method of struggle that exemplifies consistency with the teachings and values envisaged in major religions of the world (Weber, 1990). Nonviolence Action Nonviolence is an umbrella term that describes a wide range of approaches and methods employed in dealing with conflict. These methods share a common principle that physical violence against other people is wrong and unjustifiable. Two major dimensions of nonviolent action have been explored in the discourse on handling human difference. The first one is the tactical-strategic dimension which provides indications on the depth of analysis, the primary objective or aim, and the time-frame within which activists intend to accomplish their objectives. The second dimension is the pragmatic-ideological which provides indications on the levels of commitment to nonviolence strategies and the approaches that activists are likely to employ. This entails the significance of the relationship between the means used and the outcome, as well as the attitude towards opponents. Tactical exponents of nonviolent behavior employ short to medium term campaign strategies as a means to achieve specific goals within a defined social framework. Their primary objective is often to initiate reforms. Strategic exponents in contrary are guided by structural analyses of social interactions and are primarily focused on fundamental transformation of society. Campaigns in this context are thus undertaken to realize long-term revolutionary objectives Pragmatic exponents resort to nonviolent tactics because of the underlying belief that it is the most effective approach given the circumstances. Conflict in this context is viewed to be a relationship involving antagonists that have incompatible interests. Their goal is normally to defeat their opponents. Ideological exponents in contrast regard nonviolent action as the best option due to ethical considerations. They believe in the unity of means and ends. Opponents are perceived as partners in the common struggle to serve the needs of all. More fundamentally, nonviolence is regarded to be a way of life. Pacifism as a philosophy is based on the proposition that any form of violence is unconditionally wrong and unjustified. The ideal situation should be then that social intercourse at any level should be inherently peaceful and nonviolent. Conditional pacifism however takes a slight shift from this position, proposing that violence under extreme provocation may be justifiable. A violent reaction in self-defense is thus justifiable, even though victims must do whatever is possible within their means to minimize any harm that may in the process be inflicted on their attackers. In as much as pacifism is regarded to be largely a humanist philosophy, it has been associated with a number of religious entities and traditions. Christian denominations such as Quakers and Mennonites strongly oppose the use of violence in whichever form. The great Peace of the Iroquois is also founded on values that uphold co-existence, caring, fairness, respect and reasoning. Mainstream religious factions such as Judaism, Catholism and Islam also uphold significant pacifist traditions. Values and Strategies of Nonviolence Active non-violence involves changing personal values and traditions as a means of achieving the greater good of equality in a more peaceful world. This requires not just proclaiming the truth, but living it as well. This requires that people uphold values of justice and integrity as a sure way of fostering positive social interaction. To this end, as human beings the primary focus should be on digging out the roots of violence from within their hearts, and in their personal agendas. At a personal level, one must strive to live today in a way that builds up to and fulfills the aspirations for the future. Borrowing on the example of Gandhi, people ought to look toward a higher authority as the foundation of absolute truth. Gandhian nonviolence was primarily based on religious principles that were drawn from diverse scriptures, especially the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran and the Bible. Satyagraha was the central theme of his concept, which translated as either ‘truth seeking’ or ‘soul force’. The most significant aspect of his teaching was that activists could essentially learn from their opponents, and vice versa. This can only be achieved if parties in conflict could reach the understanding that it is impossible to achieve truth or disseminate it through forceful means The impact of Gandhi’s teachings was well exemplified through the Indian independence movement that involved thousands of Indians and lasted for over three decades. Despite the large size of the movement and many years it lasted, it remained nonviolent even at the time law enforcement agents reacted to its activities with violence resulting in protesters being beaten and imprisoned. The unrelenting non-violent approach was not a mean fete for the movement. Gandhi was able to sustain this calmness through a process that involved 8 steps. The movement’s campaigns were first initiated through negotiation and arbitration. At this initial stage the primary focus was postulating the key issues in contention and developing a platform for engagement and cooperation with British officials. In the event that pertinent issues were not resolved, the second option was non-violent action involving ultimatums, agitation, noncooperation, economic strikes and boycotts, civil disobedience, creation of parallel government. Gandhi’s strategy exemplified unwavering commitment to nonviolence means in bringing out the change that the Indian people desired and deserved. All participants in Gandhian campaigns were made to pledge their commitment to peaceful means in advocating for change. As pointed out by Boff, development of such a massive and enduring movement with remarkably little violence was largely due to the values and personalized self-control that Gandhi instilled in the campaigners. A major factor to the success of Gandhian campaigns was the ability of Gandhi to effectively control the dynamics of escalation. Gandhi had made sure to eliminate all precipitators of escalation. To this end, campaigns were focused on the issues at hand thereby avoiding proliferation of other matters that were less significant. Emphasis was laid on developing effective personal relationships with opponents, hence effectively restraining the movement from unnecessary antagonism and confrontation. Gandhi made sure to publicize all intended moves, a factor that immensely contributed to effective communication of information within the movement and wit the opponents. Like Gandhi’s, Kings approach entailed a series of steps involving gathering of information, education, personal commitment, negotiations, direct action and finally, reconciliation. The series of planned action created opportunities for finding resolutions without resorting to violence, while ensuring that proponents and adversaries were equally serviced with accurate information that could enable them make appropriate decisions regarding the pertinent issues in contention and the process. Effectiveness of Nonviolence The reasons that have been comprehensively discussed in conflict resolution discourse often lay emphasis on the usefulness and effectiveness of the strategies that are employed to find resolutions to conflict. Yet nonviolence as an option goes beyond the conviction of being useful or effective, it is as a matter of essence a way of life that is most consistent with the belief in unity of mankind. It is the only method of conflict resolution, whether personal or political that enhances the prospect of what has often been referred to as 'self-realization’. It should be noted that nonviolence in religious context does not primarily focus on the broader society, but spiritual wellbeing at individual level. Believers are hence expected to refrain from any form of violent behavior, not even when faced with violent attacks that warrants self-defense. Believers are directed to “Love thine enemy” as a means of positively affecting opponents and evoking more peaceful co-existence. As suggested by Boff, if individual can earn respect and admiration simply by loving their enemies, this should be the best means by which new ideas and suggestions will eventually turn out to be auto-suggestions within the enemy. The ultimate objective of nonviolent behavior towards ones enemies is therefore to convert them into friendlier people. According to Leonardo Boff, the origin of violence is in the elite institutions of power which establish social structures that protect the interests of dominant groups (Boff 1991). The elite institutions in extreme cases oppose any social transformation out of fear of losing their privileged status. This, according to Boff, explains why many developing countries are persistently engrossed in a state of terrorism. Structural violence requires an appropriate response. But as suggested by Boff, rather that employing revolutionary or retaliatory violence, a more effective response should involve non-violent mechanisms. Non-violent means enable victims to avoid becoming accomplices of social injustices, but at the same time enable they retain their human dignity Dealing with Human Difference Faith and philosophy based violence as discussed above has potential to bring about significant political change. But according to Gene Sharp, nonviolence also has a significant strategic vantage point. According to Sharp, a combination of nonviolent discipline with persistent solidarity has the effect of eventually rendering the oppressors actions to be exposed in very demining light (Sharp, 1971). Sharp explains that the opponent’s behavior can be changed through non-violent action in three ways. The first is conversion, which involves a change in perspective or heart of the opponent to the extent that the goals and objectives of the protestors actually turn out to be the focus and primary concern of the opponent. Secondly, the behavior of the opponent can be changed by resorting to accommodate the views of the oppressed. In this case the opponent decides to yield to the demands of the oppressed without changing the mind regarding the issues in contention. The most significant consideration at this point is that there exists other important factors at stake that must be addressed , and therefore the most logical step to take is to yield on the issue rather than succumb to a worse condition or situation regarded to be still unsatisfactory. The extreme end is coercion, where the opponent has not changed his heart or mind, but gives in to the protestor’s demands because he/she feels there is no better option Sharp goes further to define three major categories of nonviolent action. The first is protest and persuasion, which involve actions that highlight the key issues in contention as well as the most appropriate strategy for effectively responding to the perceived situation. Such actions include leafleting, picketing, marches, petitions, vigils and teach-ins. The second category is noncooperation, where protestors deliberately refuse to take part in behavior or actions they consider to be socially, economically and politically wrong. This approach involves actions such as strikes, boycotts, sanctuary and civil disobedience. The third category is nonviolent intervention, which involves techniques used by protestors to actively interfere with activities they object. Specific actions in this approach include forming of parallel governments, sit-ins, overloading facilities and fasting. The magnitude of confrontation and disruption tends to increase as the options transcend from protesting, to persuasion, and finally to intervention. If the objective of the protestors is to convert, the most appropriate cause of action is likely to involve protests and persuasion. The intention to coerce the opponent to readjust their position and behavior is likely to call for non-violent intervention strategy. Those with accommodation in mind would be better of pursuing a blend of protest and persuasion actions. Conclusion Regardless of the criteria employed in evaluating the approaches to be used in enforcing change through nonviolent means, it is imperative that actionists should borrow on the military strategies particularly in regard to making elaborate plans for their actions and enforcing discipline among the participants. By incorporating these factors into carefully crafted plans of action, nonviolence is likely to achieve better results than violent confrontation, and with minimal escalation, hostility and backlash. References Boff, L., 1991: "Active Nonviolence: The Political and Moral Power of the Poor. Forward to Relentless Persistence: Nonviolent Action in Latin America. Philip McManus and Gerald Schlabach, eds., Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, pp. vii-xi, p. vii Sharp, G., 1971: 'A Study of the Meaning of Nonviolence' in G. Ramachandran and T.K. Mahadesan, (eds.), Gandhi: His Relevance for our Times, Berkeley, World Without War, pp. 21-66. Weber, T., 1990: Conflict Resolution and Gandhian Ethics, New Delhi, Gandhi Peace Foundation. Read More