Non-Violent Means Of Protest

Why a non-violent means of protest can be the best and most effective way of gaining freedom from repression Can violence as a form of protest ever be justified?
In this essay, one will be able to determine why a non-violent means of protest can be the most effective way of gaining freedom from repression. In contrast to this, the essay will also discuss whether violence as a form of protest can ever be justified. The term “non violence” in definition means the use of peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change. The essay will illustrate if it is more successful to become victorious with words or
by brutal force. Finally, it will provide some examples of when violence can be justified as the only means of successfully gaining the desired outcome.
Firstly, the most significant advantage to protesting without violence is that deaths and injuries are generally less likely to occur.
If the protesters use force to achieve their desire then there would be a higher risk of retaliation from the opposition. Therefore, innocent lives would be lost over a matter that could be settled in a peaceful, democratic way. A quote that supports this statement is from Martin Luther King, leader of the civil rights movement in America, who also fought for the equality of African Americans in the 1960s: “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.” * He means by this that we have forgotten about the power of our voices and believe that the only way to gain our goal is through force, violence and bloodshed. Also that through peace and democratic reasoning innocent lives will be spared from the hardship of war
.
Secondly, by protesting peacefully you are more likely to gain the support of a higher volume of the population, thus increasing the possibility of influencing change. Therefore more people will better understand what your ideology can do for them. In addition to this, there is a higher possibility that the incumbent government will review the protester’s viewpoints more sympathetically and, as a result, existing laws may be repealed. A pertinent quote to support this point is: “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, what are you doing for others?”* Another piece of evidence to support these points was the revolution that swept the Middle East in 2011. Where brutal regimes that had been in power for many years were overturned by freedom seekers. This was paraphrased by Wael Ghonim, an Egyptian activist who subtitled his recent memoirs with: “ The power of the people is greater than the people in power” * Both these statements support the point that fighting your arguments through a peaceful protest is more influential to the people and occasionally to the government rather than forcing your beliefs through fear and aggression.

Finally, freedom of speech and peaceful protest in a democratic state is a wholly lawful activity and therefore cannot be halted or disrupted by the authorities.
Actions such as demonstrations, marches, industrial action including strikes, writing and distribution of propaganda material, TV and radio broadcasts and the introduction of a new political party can all be an effective and legal method of protest against the current government or leader’s ideology. Using force or causing riots to prove a point is an illegal action and can lead to prosecution of the perpetrators thus undermining their position. Peaceful protest is much more likely to be successful. * An example of this is Lech Walesa’s involvement in the Gdansk shipyard strikes in Poland in 1980 which persuaded the then communist government to sign an accord with the strike coordinating committee and allowed not only the workers the right to strike but also permitted them to form their own independent union. This desired outcome had come about as a result of peaceful protest. However, it has to be said, previous similar actions in the shipyard, particularly in the 1960s,resulted in many deaths due to the hard line taken by the authorities at that time. It can mean therefore that, sometimes, protests resulting in change make take many years to create the desired outcome, during which time violence and even death may
occur.*
Violence alone can never really be justified but if it is based upon structured principles and is used as a last resort then sometimes violent protest can benefit the cause, but usually only for a short period of time. An excellent example of this is the South African Native National Congress (ANC) who were founded in 1912 and were the primary force in the struggle for racial equality and the abolition of Apartheid. After more than 50 years of a non-violent protest against repression from the government the ANC decided that they must turn to violence as a last resort to make their voices heard. So, in 1961 they adopted terrorism tactics including targeting government and civilian facilities. Their original aim was to do this without any loss of life but, as their attacks grew larger, civilians were caught up in the bombings and by 1990, when the ANC were legalized, hundreds of innocent people had been killed. It wasn’t until their most famous member, Nelson Mandela, was imprisoned that the ANC pushed for the final abolishment of Apartheid in South Africa, resorting back to their previous and more favourable tactics of peaceful protest. This evidence proves that violence was justified as a last resort because, without it, the legalisation of the ANC and abolishment of apartheid in South Africa would have taken significantly longer to achieve. However, it could be argued that had the ANC reverted to a more peaceful protests earlier, or continued with their peaceful regime they had started with, then a large number of deaths, that were so very unnecessary, could have been avoided.

In conclusion, non- violent protest is a more effective way of gaining freedom from repression as words do not leave bruises and speeches do not leave wounds. It does, however leave you to question whether wars and other conflicts can ever be justified as evidence suggests that peaceful ways of solving issues, without destruction and loss of life, are often the most successful. Finally, two concluding and pertinent quotes from Martin Luther King, 1. “We must learn together as brothers or we will perish together as fools.” *
2. “I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”*
Bibliography:
1st Quote: Martin Luther King , “Strength To Love Speech” 1963
2nd Quote: Martin Luther King, “I Have A Dream”
3rd Quote: Whael Gnomin’s Memoirs
Lech Walesa Information: Wikepedia
4th Quote: Martin Luther King
5th Quote: Martin Luther King, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
By Darcey Edkins