Political Violence : The Philosophy Of Nonviolence And Violence

All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

Non-violence is a peaceful strategy people used in the 1900’s to revolt against the government. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mohandas Gandhi had the most success in changing the way we live today. How did they get nonviolence to work? Well they were very disobedient, disciplined, and determined to make a change in society.

Pacifism covers an array of views and there are many subcategories of pacifism, some of which I will cover, but the main definition of the word pacifism is the opposition to war and/or violence. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the “Sermon on the Mount”, where Jesus claims the “peacemakers” are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who work for peace. One common and simple argument for pacifism among religious groups or god fearing people is the argument that god’s revealed words says, through the bible, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Throughout history, many conflicts have happened, some with resolution, and other without. We often tend to think of solving conflicts with war, since most of our history classes are based around World War I, World War II, and so forth, but many conflicts were fought, and successfully won using nonviolent resistance. Many people would use Gandhi as a well known example. Gandhi’s plan of civil disobedience revolved around this big idea called “satyagraha,” which he explains as, “a satyagrahi should always possess civility and humility, qualities that indicated self-control and an humble approach to truth” (Gandhi 50). He later explains that satyagraha is “truth-force” and that truth is soul and spirit, or “spirit-force.” “It excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to punish” (51). He used this strategy to fight for indian independence. Many other incidents in the world have been fought using civil disobedience, including Women’s Suffrage.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

To accept Gene Sharp’s argument that the techniques of nonviolent action are more effective than the violence of military action, we must first comprehend Gene Sharps interpretation of what military action is. Gene Sharp defines military action, when he states “Military action is based largely on the idea that the most effective way of defeating an enemy is by inflicting heavy destruction on his armies, military equipment, transport system, and cities.” Sharp accuses weapons for being the reason society accepts military action as the most effective means of defeating an enemy, for that weapons are designed to murder or destroy with maximal efficiency. Sharps belief, that any prospective replacements for war in the aegis of freedom must involve possessing and utilizing strength, colliding and testing an invaders military ability and power, and conducting efficient combat, can be achieved through nonviolent action. The techniques of nonviolent action follow Sharps credentials for being a substitute of war, by wielding power, confronting and engaging an invader’s military might, and waging an effective fight. For that, when performing a method of nonviolent action by declining aid and cooperation to a ruler’s power, it makes it impossible for a ruler to exercise authority over the population. A ruler can only successfully possess complete power, with public conformity over the people he or she rules. This ultimately constitutes nonviolent action as the most suitable

Pacifism is the belief that violence is not the way to resolve differences. They believe that war can be avoided and that there are better and longer lasting solutions to disputes.

Non-violent direct action can also be used for political purposes. Protestors can often be found outside of government buildings demanding change. It also works well in this aspect because it can be more powerful than the use of violence. The destruction and anguish are generally what is heard about not what the purpose it when violence is used. Non-violent action is superior at getting the issues

Using nonviolent actions can be the most effective way to change someone’s perspective and character. By using nonviolence, a person doesn’t feel threatened or forced to change, but rather allows them to have an open mind to a different perspective. While this can lead to a positive outcome, it can also lead to the dangers of taking actions without thinking of the consequences. For example, written in 1958, Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe, describes the story of Christian missionaries being able to conquer and convert an entire village without using any violent method. Rather, they presented themselves as friendly and introduced ideologies foreign to the small village of Umuofia.

Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks,

As explained by William Hawk in his essay “Pacifism: Reclaiming the Moral Presumption”, the pacifist is a person that refuses to participate in war for in any circumstance for two reasons; the grounding belief that war is wrong, and the belief that human life is sacred and invaluable. Many pacifist

First off, there are events and issues that sometimes cannot be solved simply by the use of nonviolence. For example, while war does nobody any good, if provoked enough it really can’t be avoided. It’s easier to say “nonviolence is the only way” when you’re dealing with conflict on a community scale or smaller. However, if there is conflict between whole countries, nonviolence will probably be a much less effective solution. It could in fact lead to a much worse outcome! If one country attempt to raid or attack another, you can’t really avoid chaos to ensue within them. Evidently, violence, while wrong in most situations, is sometimes necessary when responding to much larger scale conflicts.

Mahatma Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man”. Gandhi revolutionized the way people confronted problems by using nonviolent protest. Instead of attacking the British with physical force, he made his grievances known and confronted them with words and peaceful demonstrations. Throughout my life, I’ve tried my best to use this idea when I interact with others and with how I handle problems. I want to be kind but assertive. I try to not make any direct attacks against the person involved, and keep in mind the struggles of people around me. I make sure to remain peaceful and not rush in with violence. (or in my

Blessed is the man who can perceive the law of ahimsa (nonviolence)" (Gandhi's Philosophy of Nonviolence). He believes that violence is never the answer and that people should stay away from it. Violence will create another violence and there would be no end. Also, the government takes the violence resistant harshly. They ignore people who cause disturbance to the society and to the citizens. Having a peaceful resistance, the government sees the people and consider their resistance and try to come with a solution to satisfy their citizens.