The Pakistani Spectator

I have recently finished reading the excellent biography Benjamin Franklin, by Edmund S. Morgan. Franklin is my personal favorite among the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, an inspirational example, and, by all accounts, a delightful and brilliant human being. I can’t presume to speak for what Franklin, dead more than 200 years, would say on current events, but I found profound inspiration from this fine book, nonetheless, and let it be to Franklin’s credit if anything I say here rings true, and to my own discredit if it does not.

Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. argued magnificently for the moral case for nonviolence as a way of life and as the moral path to bring change. Gandhi and King both lost their lives following that moral path faithfully. I commend their morality-based arguments, but I am utterly unqualified to add anything of value to the powerful moral case for nonviolence that they already have made. Franklin pursued a non-violent path for more than a decade, largely as a colonial envoy to England, searching for peaceful compromise that would preserve the union of England and America, so he clearly saw hope in nonviolence, but in the end, he chose to advocate independence for America, and the war that he knew that declaration of independence would bring. Therefore, he clearly saw value and hope for nonviolence as a tactic, but did not see a necessity for nonviolence as a moral absolute. For those who see the necessity for nonviolence as a moral absolute, there is little need to argue the point. For those who, like Franklin, see the necessity for change as the absolute, and who are more flexible about the means of accomplishing that change, there is still a tactical question:

“What is the most practical, best path to the change I desire, and is nonviolence a part of that path to change?” Even for those, like myself (and, it seems, Franklin), who in spite of the marvelous moral arguments do not subscribe to nonviolence as an absolute moral necessity, it may be possible to conclude that non-violent resistance is nonetheless the best path forward, at least for now.

First, a few words on what I mean by “nonviolence”:

Nonviolence is not the same thing as obedience! Thoreau’s important early work on the subject was titled “Civil Disobedience” [my italics], so nonviolence as a tactic is frequently disobedient to the laws and customs of the society and government that the individual wishes to change, frequently causing enormous difficulties for that society and government, deliberately, and by design.

Nonviolence means avoiding physical harm to those who disagree and who work to uphold the current state of things, but it does not prevent those who work to uphold the current state of things from physically and possibly grievously harming you or others who join you in nonviolent resistance! The idea, here, is that you can, with effort, control your own actions, but you cannot possibly control the actions of those who oppose you, so your responsibility, if you choose nonviolence, is for nonviolence on your own side, only. I believe Gandhi said he would willingly give his life for his people’s freedom, but he would never take another’s life or in any way do physical harm to another, and this exemplifies the non-violent approach at its absolute, a willingness potentially to take huge personal risk, knowing that you may be violently attacked, but an absolute unwillingness to do harm, yourself, even in direct self-defense.

(I am not sure whether nonviolence as an ideal prevents doing damage to objects, so long as this destruction is absolutely safely guaranteed not to harm people, but perhaps this is a topic for debate among the nonviolence advocates. In 1773, in the “Boston Tea Party,” rebellious colonists dumped overboard large amounts of tea taken from ships in Boston harbor in protest against English taxation of tea purchased in America, without American representation in the English Parliament (“taxation without representation,” a major sore point with the American colonists). Assuming no person was harmed or threatened in this protest, was it an example of nonviolence? Much more recently was a sort of “fish war” between Iceland and Britain, mainly, when Iceland declared control over fishing rights in waters that were previously considered international. I had the pleasure on a business trip to visit Iceland’s National Museum, where I saw what was described as “the only weapon ever invented by the Icelandic military” – a sort of sharpened hook on the end of a long cable, used by the Icelandic Coast Guard (the only military force Iceland has!) to cut the net lines from unauthorized fishing trawlers – this was as near to violence as the Icelanders came, or, apparently, were willing to come, in this fight!)

Franklin apparently placed little emphasis in his life on moral absolutes – he was more interested in what works, and what doesn’t, in achieving desired ends at acceptable cost. In this spirit, let’s look at what makes nonviolence effective, and when it does not work so well:

Franklin stated that all governments, even tyrannical ones, have good, practical reason to pay close attention to prevailing public opinion – even a tyranny needs the obedience of its soldiers and police to carry out its tyrannical control, and even a tyranny will find it more expensive and difficult to control a population almost universally opposed to it than to control a population largely, even if reluctantly, consenting to the current government control. Even tyrannical governments likely care about international opinion, too, if only so that their leaders may enjoy more prestige abroad, and may feel secure against foreign-sponsored coup attempts or even outright wars of conquest, which are made easier when the invaders are seen as potential liberators. Franklin made every effort to explain this principle to the English, and to explain where their actions offended American opinion. He explained how they might amend those actions at little cost to preserve the political union of Britain and America, and to build through that union the greatest empire the world had ever seen, which Franklin fervently desired. England’s inattention to that public opinion, Franklin believed, cost them that empire.

As a tactic, nonviolent protest is all about making your opinion known, and placing that opinion in a sympathetic, favorable light to the public. To make my point, I’m going to risk a discussion involving your own history, which you undoubtedly know better than I do, so feel free to correct me (as I know you will!) if I get it entirely wrong! Even if I get it wrong, or simply restate what you already knowvery well, perhaps it will give you insight, at least, into the Western view of a part of your own history: Gandhi wanted the British, specifically, to know very clearly that the “Indians” (I am using the term in the sense of the time, when what the British called “India” included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh, I realize) passionately desired independence from Britain. He knew the British had a free press and a democratic government that was necessarily responsive to the opinion of the British public. As long as the British public could tell itself that British control of India was useful to the Indians, and that the Indians who opposed that control were ignorant and uncivilized, the British voters were likely to favor their government continuing to control India. However, it is very hard for such a people to hold onto their view of themselves as superior to those they control, when their government uses violence to suppress dissent, and those who protest that government steadfastly refuse to use violence in return, even in self-defense! It is very hard to place a non-violent protester in the “ignorant savage” category, or the “evil terrorist” category – at worst, he or she is simply misinformed about what is best, but surely it is just as possible that the one’s own side is misinformed, as well, and there is no shame in considering that alternative! The circumstances Gandhi faced were nearly ideal for nonviolent protest:

• The oppressive government was a democracy, responsive to the public opinion of its people.
• The oppressive government had a free press, with vigorous internal debate.
• The British people had a self-image of being morally in the right, and of being compassionate to the feelings of others, not a self-image of being conquerors, with no concern or duty to the conquered. (Self-image is important, even when it is wrong!)
• When the British gave up India, in so doing they could feel noble and selfless, patting themselves on the back for making the proper choice, even when no violence forced that choice.

Where one or more of these elements are missing, for example, if the government you wish to persuade is not a democracy, nonviolence faces more of an uphill battle, though it may well still be the best tactic. This is not, of course, to say that what Gandhi (and many others, I realize!) achieved was easy – surely not, only to say that what he achieved could not have been achieved more easily, or at lower cost (to either side) by any other means. Consider the alternative, in 1930s and 1940s India: If resistance had been violent, primarily, the British could have portrayed the resistors as a minority intent only on taking control for their own selfish, evil purposes. Fighting such a minority would likely feel noble, would leave the British public with their illusion of taking the “high road.” Losing such a fight would not feel noble and selfless; it would feel like an ignominious defeat, a source of lasting shame, so they would likely fight long after the point where fighting made no sense, simply to avoid or at least postpone that mental pain. When resistance to a government is primarily violent, the new government, when the resistance succeeds, is usually at least as tyrannical as the government it replaces, because violent resistance tends to be led by the most violent and ruthless elements. (As far as I can see, the American government, following the War of Independence formally begun in 1776, is almost the only exception to this rule – almost all other free governments have either evolved their greater freedom gradually or have followed largely nonviolent revolutions.) Therefore, if the objective is change for the better, not simply change, it seems that nonviolent change, as hard and as slow as it is, is the better, safer bet.

In the 1960s, in America, Martin Luther King, Jr. faced a similar struggle against racist forces, which he, too, fought using nonviolent means. The white racists enjoyed a feeling of superiority over the African Americans, defending formal segregation of the races and discrimination against African Americans as tradition, and as necessary and proper institutions for defense of the culture of the Southern states. As African American protesters stoically, nonviolently accepted abuse from police and others, being knocked down with fire-hoses, or attacked by large police dogs, on film shown on the evening news, it became harder and harder for the white racists to claim the moral high ground, and they ultimately lost. Today, there are still all too many racists in America, deep in their hearts, but few are proud of their racism, and few would openly claim the moral high ground, and as a result, racist laws and formally racist institutions have been thoroughly expunged. If the civil rights movement, on the other hand, had simply met violence with violence, the racists might have held to their defense of the moral rightness of racism for decades, claiming (wrongly) the necessity of white self-defense as a basis for racial oppression.

There is much comment, in the pages of The Pakistani Spectator and elsewhere, about Americans controlling the world. (See my earlier post on this subject, if you missed it.) The idea seems to be that if America would simply back away from manipulating the rest of the world, wonderful things would result, and I quite agree that America has stuck its nose into more than we ought to, much to my personal regret. For those who want to change American intentions and actions, I would humbly suggest, however, that the tactic of nonviolence is especially attractive: Americans hate to be beaten in a fight! They hate the idea of backing off a course that was morally right, simply because it proved too costly. Take away Americans’ notion that their course is right and noble, however, and make us feel ashamed of our leaders’ choices, and our stubbornness is altogether undermined. There is an American saying: “Never hit a man when he is down!” The American public, and the American press, will eagerly rally behind American soldiers in a two-way fight, with violence on both sides, but we have no stomach at all for wholly one-sided oppression that is obviously unfair to the oppressed. (This is not to say that such one-sided oppression by America never happens, when it can be hidden, but it tends to be corrected when it becomes widely, publicly known.)

In less than a year, thank heavens, we will have a new American president. That president will almost surely be either Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, or John McCain. Clinton and Obama have no love of the current mess in Iraq, or of other such American-sponsored adventures, and they have committed to an orderly withdrawal. McCain is more ambiguous about the virtue of the Iraq war, although he agrees that it has been horribly mishandled by Bush in its execution. He is evidently a man of honor, though, who, however misguided, wants to do the right thing for both America, and for Iraq. Like Clinton and Obama, I think, McCain has no wish to oppress for selfish American benefit, and even he would very happily leave Iraq if the Iraqis expressed the wish clearly and nonviolently. All three, however, will find it hardest to leave Iraq if the fighting there goes really badly – the pro-war “hawks” will call them wimps, cowards, and worse, if they leave Iraq in a mess, retreating from heavy, active fighting, even where that is the right choice, regardless, but all will call them wise if they leave an Iraq that simply and clearly requests our departure on nonviolent terms. Do I expect the violent resistance in Iraq or other places currently undergoing violence to suddenly “see the light” and embrace nonviolence because of the feeble influence of my blogging, and because of my little argument that doing so would likely achieve their objectives faster than continued violence? No, surely, sadly, I do not expect this! Even if every fighter read a far more eloquent argument than my best, I wouldn’t realistically expect more than a fraction to change their minds, and unfortunately while it takes great numbers to agree on an objective to achieve nonviolent change (and this is one of the virtues of nonviolence!), it only takes a small minority of bloody-minded fanatics to maintain a counter-productive, violent movement that hurts everyone, and even harms its own cause. My hope is that the next president of the US will manage to leave Iraq in spite of, not because of, the violence that will likely continue, there, violence that will make it harder, politically, to leave, not easier.

Still, as a soldier in the war of ideas, I hope to do some feeble good with my little argument – if I persuade just one person of the fact that violence is simply a poor tactic, even if it is defensible morally, when nonviolence would achieve some political objective more effectively, I would consider my time very well spent.

Last 5 posts by Dan Tow

• The Right to Remain Silent - June 18th, 2008
• Living with Free Speech - June 6th, 2008
• Free Speech on The Pakistani Spectator - May 1st, 2008
• Limits of Free Speech - April 30th, 2008
• A Recipe for Civil War - March 11th, 2008