The efficiency and power of non-violent protest against oppression ( political commentary)

I have always strongly believed in non-violence. Through my life, and in my reading, I have noticed one thing.

Violence in the name of political change almost never works, or takes forever to accomplish the desired goal.

The Palestinian cause ? Almost forty years after the first terrorist acts were commited in it's name - Palestinians still sit in camps all over the Middle East, they do not have full control over their country. Their manifesto is so stained with the blood of the innocent, that it is almost illegible.

The Irish cause ? Forty years after it's debut of violence, finally peace has been declared, and violence temporarily put away. Recently, violence has showed it's face again in that conflict.

If one looks at other causes that took the other approach, they have managed to accomplish their goals in a much quicker way, while maintaining the moral high ground.

The US Civil Rights problem ? Rosa Parks started it ( almost all agree) in December 1955. Within ten years, much of the injustice against black Americans was well on it's way to being resolved. The Voting Rights act was signed in 1965.

Gandhi took about fifteen years to throw off British colonial rule in India, against one of the most powerful countries in the world at that time.

I suspect, though, that most of the myths and misconceptions surrounding Gandhi have to do with nonviolence. For instance, it’s surprising how many people still have the idea that nonviolent action is passive.

It’s important for us to be clear about this: There is nothing passive about Gandhian nonviolent action.

I’m afraid Gandhi himself helped create this confusion by referring to his method at first as “passive resistance,” because it was in some ways like techniques bearing that label. But he soon changed his mind and rejected the term.

Gandhi’s nonviolent action was not an evasive strategy nor a defensive one. Gandhi was always on the offensive. He believed in confronting his opponents aggressively, in such a way that they could not avoid dealing with him.

But wasn’t Gandhi’s nonviolent action designed to avoid violence? Yes and no. Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers.

Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British.

The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.

Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.

But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means.

http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html

Look at the Solidarity movement in Poland - it resulted in a rather quick victory, against a worthy foe.

The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine ? Another rather quick victory.

How about Lebanon and the Syrian withdrawal - almost overnight.

Tianamin Square ? While not directly a success, it did trigger the government to listen to the voice of the people more.

Over and over again, non-violent political protests have reduced or eliminated oppression. While doing this , it has kept the high moral ground of not killing or injuring people. That strengthens the will of the people, and lessens that of it's oppressors.

Iraq today could get rid of all American forces overnight, if they renouced violence and took to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, and refused to move. There would be nothing that the American military could do to stop it. Newscasts all over the world would show that the USA was not welcome, and that there was no need for military force against a non-violent enemy.

Non-violent protest allows both sides to win, and no one to lose.

Some suggested reading, if interested:

Letter from Birmingham jail - Martin Luther King.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience:
http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html

Gandhi's speeches:
http://www.mkgandhi.org/speeches/speechMain.htm