Non-Violence Vs Non Violence

Do we live in a world where violent resistance is no longer a realistic option to oppose an oppressive regime? The Kenny reading showed that non-violence is a path that can lead to regime change. Why is that? Is it because a non-violent struggle is morally superior to a violent one, and is therefore difficult to oppose? After all, it’s difficult to justify violence against those who struggle without violence, for human rights, justice and democracy, things most people desire. To repress them would be a blatant violation of basic human decency, whereas in an armed struggle, repression can be justified, and implemented on a mass scale, in the name of stability. Perhaps a non-violent struggle is also superior to an armed one because of the question it poses? When a government faces a rebellion, its survival depends on its ability to out-kill the other side. But in a non-violent struggle, the government’s survival depends on its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The struggle therefore becomes over votes, and rally sizes, both of which governments cannot win over easily when they are struggling against the numerically larger and more in-touch members of civil society. This could explain why governments often rely on crowd dispersal and repression, to combat non-violent activism.

Killing non-violent activists would be unjustifiable and destroy government legitimacy, and governments know they are at a disadvantage in trying to out-organize and out-vote civil society and their supporters. Out of desperation, they turn to a middle way: violence without death, which fails to address the basic question of their right to rule.