We've often discussed how the puritanical aspect of Gandhian nonviolent resistance is lost on most of the similar movements today..so my question is this: Is this due to the actors (like Gandhi, or absence thereof) or the circumstances?
In other words, one pragmatic advantage to Gandhian style nonviolent resistance was the aspect of the moral purity of the movement, in the way that it changed the world's perception of the British Empire. Once the world saw that the British Empire was not in India for humanitarian reasons, everything changed. However, I think we see most cases of nonviolent resistance differently today. Even if we (the US) do not intervene in a situation, it is not because we think the current power is actually doing the right thing. The majority of Americans would readily condemn authoritarian regimes in which nonviolent, or even violent, resistance takes (or has taken) place, such as the likes of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria.
These movements have nothing to gain by "exposing" the regime for what it truly is, as Gandhi did, because we simply already know the true nature of them. Current global circumstances seem to take away one of the key pragmatic advantages to Gandhian style nonviolent resistance. However, I'm sure that some would disagree- that perhaps it is not circumstance, merely a lack of morally driven people given the opportunity such as Gandhi was. Furthermore, I think this question in particular lies under the umbrella of the debate of nonviolent resistance as a tool, versus a lifestyle.
The solution to any sort of conflict seems to lie in the attitudes of all people involved and the circumstances combined.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, is effectivity the sole reason we choose a certain course of action? I think that we should choose non-violence even though it may not always work simply because violence is wrong. Perhaps there are cases in which we could justify direct self-defense. But to act violently as an aggressor seems indefensible to me.