Non-violence as a Constructive Force

- By Jorgen Johansen*

The 20th century is the most violent period in the history of mankind. More people have suffered and more people have been killed by organised violence than in any other similar epoch ever. The hundreds of wars, the genocides, the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the unjust distribution of wealth have created such an enormous mass of misery and agony that it is difficult to find traces of hope for the future. I will in the following try to describe the few but important insights and seeds of hope we can observe by the turn of the 20th century. I will do so by taking the position that there is empirical evidence from the last two decades for a growing trust in non-violent means in the struggle for political, social, economic and religious aims. In the large majority of these examples there is obviously what Gandhi called "Nonviolence of the weak" seen in action. The pragmatic use of non-violence as a substitute for arms is, in my view, a large step in a positive direction. In a few of these cases we have also witnessed a growing interest in what we would call "constructive work", to use a Gandhian term. I will finally look at some of the present possibilities for the spreading of successful non-violent struggles. Trends in Armed Conflicts In recent years, especially since the end of the Cold War, we have seen a decreasing number of wars between states and a growing number of wars within states. The large majority of the present wars are in the category of civil wars. These wars have dominated the image of wars presented by media. Most of them are, at least on the surface, much more complex than the traditional conflicts between states. The number of interests involved in these conflicts is several and it is not easy to identify "the good guys" and "the bad ones". One reason for this difficulty is that all parties use violent and armed means to achieve their goals. The consequences for the civil population are so devastating that it is difficult to see the so called "good intentions" of the conflicting parties. The number of civilian victims as a percentage of the total number of casualties has been growing enormously since the beginning of this century. In most modern wars more than 80% of the killed ones are civilians, not soldiers. In comparison, only 5% of those who died in the First World War were civilians.

New States being born

The world community has in the recent hundred years been in a process of dividing states into smaller units. When the First World War broke out the number of independent states in the world were around forty. Today the number is close to 200. Leaving aside the parallel process of regionalism, I will in the following focus on the process of new states being born. Since almost all territory in the world was divided between states more than hundred years ago, the only way for new states to get access to territory is by splitting old states. The process of de-colonisation is one example of such a process. When the African colonies got their independence they got control over the territory mainly by armed struggle. The military means used also came to characterise the new states. In short, and with a few exceptions, we can say that they all became one-party communist regimes with a strong militaristic structure. The means used "contaminated" the new states. And this for quite obvious reasons. The best military leaders, who were capable to gain victory over the colonial forces, were raised and better trained as professional officers than as democratic leaders. Their way of thinking, their language and their skills were not the best ones for creating a new democratic, open, multi-party state.

Nations becoming States

Without defining a "nation" in detail I will, in the following, use that term for a unit of people who feel enough unity to demand large autonomy and eventually a state of their own. The most common identities for nations are based on ethnicity, language, religion and political beliefs or a combination of some or all of these. I am well aware of the relatively few examples of nations who do not have any territorial claims, but will focus on those who put the demand for political control of territory high up on their list of demands. Of the close to two hundred states we have in the world today, only around twenty can be called nation- states. By nation- states I mean a state with only one nation within its borders. The rest have two or more nations, or parts of nations, within their territory. In the world as a whole there are at least two thousand nations large enough to be separate states. Obviously not all of these have expressed ambition to create their own state. These figures are more to present the explosive potential of ethnic conflicts for the coming century.

Terminology

Let me present one comment on the terminology. In most academic works the word WAR has been defined by using different calculations of the number of deaths as a consequence of armed conflicts. Some count only those who are dying in the battlefields, other includes all who die as a consequence of the conflict. But what they all have in common is that they look at war as "an armed conflict with XX numbers of casualties....". I will oppose all these different definitions by arguing that war is NOT a type of conflict. War is one, of several, means used to influence a conflict. By defining war as a type of conflict you risk to conceal the actual conflict from the means used to influence it. As a result the other options to influence the conflict will be more difficult to see. All those ways to use non-violent means will never be considered in the same context. The factual conflicts can be identical, for example incompatible demands on a territory, but the means used by one or more of the involved parties can be nonbelligerent, and as a consequence, the number of deaths few or none. My conclusion is that it is of immense importance to separate the conflict itself from the means used to influence it. In order to judge the means separate from the conflict you need to define war as a means not a type of conflict. How often have we not realised that we have sympathy with the aims, but not with the means used in a conflict!

Trends in Creation of New States

This paper will have its main emphasis on the means used in the creation of new states or revolutionary means used to take power in an existing state. The equally important question of the actual result of the struggles will not be discussed at length. My forthcoming research programme will focus on that, but it is premature at this stage to speculate on its results. With the very important exception of India most liberation movements up to the mid seventies used mainly armed and violent means in their struggles for independence. In quite a few cases, the violent means were mixed with nonviolent ones. I sincerely believe that there still are a lot of unknown examples of non-violent activities in many of the independence struggles in this century. One reason for not knowing about them is the lack of interest and skills in these means on the part of the authors of history books and the vast majority of journalists who have been reporting on these struggles. But despite these obstacles we have seen a growing number of non-violent means being reported in the last two or three decades. I believe that these observations reflect both an increasing awareness of the non-violent means used and a growing number of successful examples of the application of these means.

Iran

When the Shah of Iran was forced to leave the country in 1979 it was after a relatively short period of revolutionary uprising initiated by the religious leaders. The most extraordinary thing about the process was not the very short period from the start of the uprising to when the old leadership finally gave up, but the means used by those who demanded a change. Against the modern army, the secret police (SAVAK), and the well-equipped ordinary police-forces, the opposition had tried for many years to challenge the secular state with armed resistance and guerrilla warfare. Around 1977 the opposition started to organise a resistance movement centered around Khomeini who lived in exile. Khomeini sent tapes of instructions from France: these were copied, distributed, and played in mosques around the country. He provided explicit instructions, calling for strikes, boycotts, demonstrations and non-cooperation. All well-known non-violent means used by other groups around the world were employed, but with such rapid results. In the Iranian revolution the overthrowing of the old regime happened relatively quickly and the results were very close to the goals of those who demanded a change in the state system. The fact that they were met by violence and arms did not prevent the demonstrators from going on with their nonviolent actions.

Poland

In many ways the Iranian revolution set a new trend for successful revolutions in the two decades that followed. The next actor on the scene is Solidarity in Poland. After two centuries of armed uprisings, the polish workers in 1980 tried to fight the regime without arms. In August 1980 industrial strikes occurred in several parts of the country. Starting in the shipyards in Gdansk the strikes spread to many sectors and cities in the country. The scope of the protests and the lack of violence created a situation where the government was forced to start negotiations with the newly formed free Trade Unions. By the end of the movement close to 10 million people in a total population of 35 million joined the protests. The unions created a multitude of diverse forums for free expression of opinions. Early in 1981 the new unions were declared illegal and forced to go underground. The underground Solidarity created a rich variety of non-violent actions. One year later they were back on the streets again and went on with their activities. This is not the place to write an extended history of the Solidarity Movement. I just want to remind the reader about the large number of negotiations with a wide variety of parties which took place in 1989 and which resulted in a new regime in Poland.

Bolivia

One of the other early examples is from Bolivia. After five general strikes with successive increases in participation, the generals had to step down in 1982 and hand over governmental power to those who won the elections of 1980. The non-violent mobilisation started in 1977 when three women from the mining districts started a hunger strike in the capital La Paz. The well-known woman Domitila Barrios de Chungra joined them and soon many supportive activities around the country followed. Bolivia is not well known for non-violent resistance, but there are a lot of interesting parallels with what happened in Poland. In both cases, the workers' organisations co-operated with the farmers’ unions and generated a strong coalition which decided to use nonviolent means. The armed tradition from Che Guevara turned out to be less effective and popular than the strikes, demonstrations and boycotts.

Philippines

In February 1986 popular uprisings took place at military camps in Quezon City, the capital of Philippines. President Ferdinand Marcos met serious opposition after thirteen years of martial law. Marcos announced presidential elections confident of victory. Corazon Aquino, wife of the late Benigo Aquino ran against him under the banner LABAN, an acronym for Lakas ng Bayan ("Power of the People"). Marcos used fraud to win the elections and several of the government's tabulators walked out in protest. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines issued a document that was read out from pulpits throughout the nation. The document said that the people had a duty to resist nonviolently. Later, parts of the armed forces declared that Mrs. Aquino was the true winner of the elections. Massive demonstrations in yellow t-shirts were taken out in and around the capital to support Mrs. Aquino. By the end of February 1986 Marcos fled the country and Corazon Aquino took her place as the Philippines' legally elected president.

Eastern Europe

By the year 1989 the Communist regimes in six Eastern and Central European countries witnessed non-violent movements which undermined their one-party systems. They are Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. During the following year multiparty elections were held. Many similarities can be seen in these events. Popular movements used non-violent means to put pressure on their political leadership and Soviet Union hesitated to come to the aid of the Communist establishments. All countries found themselves in a difficult situation and were not able to cope with it. The lack of violence from the protesters seems to have been the reason why the establishment had serious difficulties in handling them. They had trained their police and military to handle violent uprisings, but had no preparation or skills for containing unarmed demonstrators. The "CNN-effect" had a restraining influence on the possible use of brute force. With international television cameras following almost every step the demonstrators took, the political cost of hard repression became much higher than the regimes could afford.

This is not the place to present detailed description of these events. I want to say that it will be a great misinterpretation of what happened if focus is directed only on the civil resistance and non-violent means employed. These aspects are certainly some of the most important and necessary elements, but they are not sufficient to explain what really happened. My thesis is that the means used had an important impact on the process as well as the outcome of the revolutions in East and Central Europe. To what degree and in what way the means influenced the outcome and the way the revolutions took place is still to be investigated. In what way would the result have been different if the people had used violent means also needs to be investigated.

The division of Soviet Union

Of the eighty-nine republics in the former Soviet Union, the three Baltic ones gained independence first. In Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia the popular movements working for autonomy decided to use non-violent means. Even when the Soviet armed forces took to weapons to prevent the demonstrators from gaining their goals, they kept non-violent discipline. An important factor in these cases was the political pressure on Soviet Union from other European countries and demonstrations in favour of the Baltic movements in Sweden and other friendly states.

The independence of Belarus and Ukraine were achieved at the negotiating table. When Chechnya fought for the same rights they took to arms and fought a regular war against the Russian forces. The war ended temporarily after very bloody struggles and devastating damage with a cease-fire but no resolution to the conflict was achieved.

The division of Czechoslovakia

The peaceful transformation of Czechoslovakia from one state to two states took place around the negotiating table. The difficult sharing of common resources were done after long discussions and with a great deal of understanding from both sides. None of the parties involved used the threat of force to put pressure on the other. In both parts of the former Czechoslovakia those who wanted to split the country saw the non-violent option as the only effective one. This is not the way most other countries have been created. This is a sign of a qualitative new way of thinking.

Other Political and Social Movements

Many of large-scale struggles in the world in the last three decades have used a mixture of armed and non-violent means. In some cases they have changed strategy over time or they have combined different forms of struggle.

South Africa

In addition to the above mentioned examples we have witnessed the mainly peaceful transformation of South Africa from a regime of Apartheid to a multi-party society with extended democratic laws. Even though African National Congress (ANC) had a small segment of activists engaged in armed struggle, the overwhelming part of their struggle used non-violent means.

When the struggle by ANC resulted in a relatively peaceful transformation to democracy in 1994 it was after a long, hard and difficult period with mainly non-violent means. In the eyes of the oppressive regime the few and not very successful examples of violent actions used by ANC justified the use of violent means against every black person in the whole country. On the level of physical force the state was superior and the apartheid regime argued that it had to use violence to prevent the "terrorists" from destroying the country. The large majority of actions in the anti-apartheid-struggle were conducted non-violently. Many strikes, demonstrations and protests were met with brute force from police and military troops, but in most cases the activists did not depart from their non-violent strategy. The freedom struggle in South Africa was dominated by non-violent actions and they played a vital role in the development of the new state.

One very important aspect of the ANC struggle is the longterm training of personnel who could play important roles after the liberation. In exile they trained people who should be able to take over positions in the new administration, education system and other important jobs. They were able to build up a group of people who could take-over and make plans for the first period. The decision to include representatives of the former white government in the new ANC-led government showed the need and will to build the new country together. The constructive will showed to be stronger than revenge and hate. Another sign of this attitude was the Truth-Commission to deal with the violations of human rights committed during the apartheid period. That the commission also took up crimes by ANC-activists emphasise this willingness to be constructive in the building of the new society.

Palestine Liberation Organisation

After a long period of armed struggle against Israel the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) decided to change their strategy and introduced the Intifada in 1987. The new concept included a wide spectre of non-violent methods such as protests, strikes and boycotts, but also more sophisticated means such as non-cooperation, civil disobedience and the creation of alternative institutions. The media focused mainly on young males throwing stones on Israeli soldiers, but that created a misguided view of what was going on. The creation of underground economic systems, schools and political bodies combined with the use of non-violent means in the confrontations with Israel made PLO a possible counterpart in the negotiations about the future of the Palestinian people. The Oslo agreement would not have happened if PLO had kept to the former strategy of armed struggle.

Kosovo and Rugova

In Kosovo, the struggle for independence or autonomy had gone through several phases. Under the leadership of Rugova, the Albanian kosovors took a very strong non-violent line in their struggle against the Serbian leadership. Rugova explicitly said that he was inspired by Gandhi and wanted to follow his methods of liberation. That line gained a lot of support from the Albanians and Rugova was elected as president with an overwhelming majority in the underground elections. The Serbian regime prevented Albanians in Kosova from living a normal life by separating them in an apartheidlike system. Under Rugova the resistance movement built up a parallel society with underground schools, health institutions, political organisations, culture and media. For a time the Albanians and the Serbs lived on the same territory, but in separate societies.

With little support from the international community Rugova had few successes to show his supporters and the disappointment over his non-violent strategy grew. In 1997 the UCK guerrillas showed up and soon they became popular. When these lines were written NATO had just ended their bomb-attack and it was difficult to predict anything about the future of Kosovo.

Next Steps

In the above paragraphs I have described briefly some of the examples of regimes being removed by non-violent means. We do not have any answer to the question why these struggles used non-violent means in the first place. What we know is that an increasing number of large scale conflicts have been fought with mainly non-violent means in the last decades. It is, in most cases, a very pragmatic use of nonviolence and has nothing to do with pacifism or a different attitude towards other human beings.

When Gandhi talked about "Non-violence of the Strong" and "Non-violence of the Weak" he made a very important point. The connection between means and ends is probably much more evident when we study "Non-violence of the Strong" than in other cases.

In my classes in Scandinavia I prefer to use the terms "Non-violent techniques" and "Non-violent Lifestyle" to be more politically correct than the biased terms "Strong" and "Weak". A technique, we know, can be taught, but what about a lifestyle? I think that good knowledge and experience in the use of the techniques is comparable to a seed being planted, which has the potential to grow into a lifestyle. Combined with historical case-studies, deep discussions, philosophical studies and "experiments with truth" the seed can grow to the wide and strong tree which symbolise a lifestyle. We need to critically and open-mindedly study many examples of nonviolence used in the world today. The conclusions must be widely known and we have to continuously set up "Pro et Contra-lists" for these means. An ongoing lively discussion among researchers, practitioners and activists must be combined with an extensive effort to put non-violence on the agenda of every political meeting, in every classroom and in every social movement. In the same way as we have seen the development of a "deep ecology movement", we need to transform the shallow non-violence techniques into a "deep non-violent" lifestyle.

This work needs to be done by those who clearly see the difference between techniques and lifestyle, in other words, by those who have a deep understanding of the Gandhian principles and the philosophy of non-violence. Those ideas, concepts and experiments Gandhi developed around the turn of the 20th century need vitalisation when we are taking the first steps into the 21st century. To develop a modern concept of "deep non-violence" we need to analyse the experiments of the recent past and understand the connection between means and ends. The popular formula that there is a causal connection between means and ends is probably more complex than we think. When the religious opposition in Iran started the un-armed revolution against the Shah, the result was not a typical non-violent society. They were able to take power, but little of their non-violent techniques were seen in the state they created. We need to carefully examine all cases of non-violent means, not only those which fit into our models and popular concepts.

Developing Theory

The connection between means and ends is a field that has drawn very little attention of peace researchers and those engaged in conflict resolution. For me, it is obvious that there is a need for deeper and more extensive studies in this area. Those who have been studying development theories have not paid much attention to the means used in social conflicts, the peace-researchers have been more focused on wars and armed conflicts, and in the area of conflict resolution, the most interesting studies have been on short-term results. Few have tried to develop theories and models covering the concept of conflict, means used for resolution and their long-term results in an integrated manner. I think that more cross science studies in these areas will help us to understand these processes and to develop new branches of knowledge in these areas. For me, personally, it is obvious that studies of Gandhi and his experiments will be an essential part of such research.

Conclusion

While entering into the 21st century the humanity has more experiences of non-violent means in large scale conflicts than ever before. To be able to learn from all these examples it is necessary to start intensive studies of these conflicts and the means used to influence them. If we want increasing use of non-violent techniques to develop further and include more "constructive work" there is an enormous task in front of us. The understanding of these complex contexts of means and ends must be made available to all those who are searching for ways to empower themselves, who are searching for ways to improve their life-situation and for the increasing number of scholars who are engaged in conflict resolution and development theory.

Courtesy: Courtesy: Non-violent Struggles of the Twentieth Century: Retrospect and Prospect,
Edited by: Siby K Joseph & Bharat Mahodaya and Published by: Institute of Gandhian Studies, Gopuri, Wardha 442001, MH, India.