How important is it for nonviolent movements to have a comm

Presentation on theme: "How important is it for nonviolent movements to have a comm"— Presentation transcript:

How important is it for nonviolent movements to have a commitment to nonviolence as a moral principle that must be adhered to at all costs? Is in fact their real appeal a pragmatic one – namely that they when the opponent commands the instruments of violence, opponents have to adopt a different strategy, that of mass nonviolent confrontation and protest?

Outline

Theory-

Prosch

, Rucker and

Bharadwaj

Robert

Burrowes

- dimensionality of nonviolence

Gandhi

King

The role of leadership

Exceptions

Exam questions

Moral grounds of civil disobedience and its limits

Debate

Prosch

vs

Rucker in the 1960s

Prosch

sees moral grounds of civil disobedience as being limited by its lack of a coercive aspect

If non-violent actions spill over into violence they can no longer be considered non-violent

Rucker sees

Prosch’s

view as too restrictive-

Prosch

only looks at political and legal actions

Principled versus pragmatic

Bharadwaj

Importance of charismatic leadership

If non-violence is only treated pragmatically then it is dooming itself to self-defeat from the beginning

Better to be violent than to be a coward

Robert Burrowes

The Strategy of Nonviolence

Defence

Two sets of continuum: the principled- pragmatic continuum and the reformist- revolution continuum

F

ive criterion

Burrowes

uses to distinguish principled from pragmatic nonviolence:

Principled practitioners choose nonviolence for its ethic; pragmatic practitioners choose nonviolence because it is the most effective or only method available.

Principled practitioners maintain the indivisibility between ends and means, pragmatists hold that they are separable.

Principled practitioners view the conflict as a shared problem. As a result, opponents become partners in the struggle. Pragmatic practitioners, on the other hand, view conflict as a relationship between antagonists with incompatible interests.

Since opponents are seen as partners, principled practitioners of nonviolence choose to endure suffering. Pragmatic practitioners, on the other hand, believe suffering inflicted on the opponent short of physical injury is acceptable.

Principled practitioners view nonviolence as a way of life; pragmatic practitioners do not

Gandhi

Religious commitment to nonviolence

A way of life, a universal principle and a transcendent value

.

Satyagraha – endurance through suffering, adherence to the consistency between means and ends and the exercise of

noncooperation

when facing an unjust social or political system

Bharadwaj

Gene Sharp

Gandhi as a Political Activist

“Being a practical man, I do not wait until India recognizes that the spiritual life in the political world is a practical necessity. India considers herself powerless and paralyzed …and takes up non cooperation via her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose, namely: bring her delivery from the crushing weight off British injustice if a sufficient number of people practice it.”

Joan Bondurant

Conquest of Violence: The

Gandhian

Philosophy

1. The

Vykom

Temple road

satyagraha

in 1924-25

2. the

Bardoli

campaign of peasants against the government of Bombay in 1928

3. the Ahmedabad labour campaign in 1918

4. the nationwide campaign against the

Rowlatt

Bills in 1919

5. the

Salt Satyagraha

in 1930-31.

Martin Luther King Jr

Nonviolence is a way of life,

it seeks to win friendship and understand

it seeks to defeat injustice, not people

it holds that suffering can educate and transform

it chooses love instead of hate

it believes that the universe is aligned with justice

James Colaiaco

“Martin Luther King

Jr

ranks among the greatest political strategists of all time.”

“apostle of militant nonviolence in America”

The Birmingham campaign in 1963

‘principled’ and ‘pragmatic’ are not necessarily separate and independent paths

Leadership

Non

vi

olence around the World: the Triumph of Gandhi,

Ralph

Summy

‘triumph’ –

ability to mobilise to popular opinion

“King and Gandhi were successful because they realised that nonviolent protest was basically an art – and they were quintessential artists” –

Colaiaco

Potent leadership/charisma/ability as politicians

Conclusion

The line between principled and pragmatic nonviolence is illusionary

It is possible to have moral nonviolence which is strategic and pragmatic

The ability of King and Gandhi to be pragmatic and principled is why both were at the forefront of two of the most important nonviolent movements

BUT…

There are examples of nonviolent protest that does not rely on strong individual charismatic leadership.

Nazi resistance in Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.

A pragmatic adherence to the principle of nonviolence:

Lacking military strength

Need for nation-wide support

Knowledge of Nazi ideology that would work in their favour

Not the charisma of leaders that created these nonviolent movements:

Emphasis on national identity

Controlled by groups not individuals

Exam questions

‘In the final analysis, successful nonviolent resistance is all a matter of strategy.’ Discuss

‘Although ostensibly a moral stance, in practice nonviolent resistance is highly pragmatic.’ Discuss.

Should nonviolent resistance be seen primarily as a pragmatic strategy or

moral

stance

?

‘Although ostensibly a moral stance, in practice nonviolent resistance is highly pragmatic.’ Discuss.

Chartism- only managed to stay non-violent up to the point that it was no longer seen as having the potential for success

The same can be said for the anti-Apartheid movement

Las Madres de Playa de Mayo- inherent morality to their movement