The general idea of acting with non-violent methods under authoritarian circumstances is far from being impossible. What Ghandi taught us nearly seventy years ago and what icons of peaceful resistance like Martin Luther King transported throuh their speeches and acting into the heads of the common generations is indeed a solid base to work on without becoming the same ruthless natures the oppressors and their henchmen are.
During the last months I tried from time to time to reflect about the borderline from non-violent behavior to self-defence, the field of taking necessary action to protect not only the own but most of all the lives of those close ones unable to shelter themselves against the oppressors‘ attacks. Unfortunately we live in a world where self-defence in certain cases will become denounced as aggression per se - by the oppressors themselves or their lobbyists. This specific tactic, filed under the label collective cynicism, makes it much more hard for the attacked not only to use a lot of their energy for the self-defending act but also for justifying their ,deeds‘ later as being in the ,tolerance level‘.
So let‘s call both sides in the ring analyzing each one‘s equipment: the violent part is keeping all tools used during suppression - from light and heavy arms to the measures of detention and torture the arsenal of dirty body- and mindbreaking accessories seems massive. And the violent part‘s not bound on something called rules when and how much to use from each type of arms. The non-violent part in the other corner has besides some other premises one main law to regard - not turning violent himself. Advantages before the beginning of the clinch obviously on the side of the violent part. The majority of the bookmakers will place their betting quotes due to that.
There are some other factors the non-violent will use to weaken his counterpart. Beginning from raising his voice about the oppressor‘s injustice over taking action via protests or informational events to convince the undecided part - in our image here a fraction of the spectators - from no longer supporting the violent side until organizing strikes and civil disobedience the non-violent sparring partner can smash the central pillars the oppressor‘s power is based on.
But it takes at least besides the two basic attitudes to realize effectively those measures another one: discipline. The other side knows that well and will permanently attack ignoring every gong to call for the end of a round.
Creativity‘s demanded as next step before the non-violent part‘s getting completely cracked down. Permanently documenting the opponent‘s atrocities, teaching the newly won supporters and trying to convince the rest of the spectators to change their attitude by not getting taken down is the fundamental part to survive the next rounds.
Additional challenge is now trying to turn the violent part‘s actions against himself if possible - the East-Asian philosophy of fighting arts mixes in that moment up with the non-violent character.
Ghandi in a Shaolin monastery, so to say.
Learning to protect the sensitive areas, i.e. the minors, the weak ones, the pundits. Never forget that the violent part loves to target and attack those sensitive areas. It‘s in his nature. Still considering the main premise not to become as violent as the other side legal targets are to be defined during the stage of implemented self-defence. Destroying the opponent‘s armory for example. Crushing his own defence. Exposing him as weaker as he likes to appear.
Non-violence becomes defined during this step as not acting violently against the counterpart‘s life as such, only against his accessories - by causing a certain rate of material loss chances are high that some bets will become placed anew. The expected reaction will be a stronger, increasingly cruel attack on the non-violent part‘s sensitive areas with the intention to produce counter-violence as reaction. From that moment on the whole will power to resist those provocations is asked.
Remind that only one rude hit back isn‘t allowed (even if the whole clash seems completely unfair: fairness is only from the non-violent side expected).
Back to the Shaolin school: trying to turn the offender‘s energy against him might be nearly impossible in the case of a fired RPG. But urging him cleverly to waste ammo and material means heading into the right direction. Generally the purpose to risk the own life is stronger among the revolutionaries than among the oppressor‘s loyals. In the here documented example the non-violent part knows much more about his own risks than the violent part feeling himself more or less invincible regarding his weaponry. This deceitful safety is the Achilles‘ heel of the violent part. As long as he sits cosy in his tank firing randomly around he will feel strong. But without the sheltering steel around him the whole situation will turn upside down.
From now on the non-violent part is getting upper-hand because of his experience defending without sheltering armory. The next bets are going to be replaced by the bookmakers. Under ideal conditions this could become the tipping point of the inequal clash. Instead of pumping more energy in form of money, new weapons etc into the violent side the financers will go more and more on distance. And those until now still undecided which side to support might also shift their sympathies.
Summoning the whole scenario: While the oppressor‘s side is based upon the ,everything goes‘-mentality due to
1) their weaponry
2) their armory and
3) their intention to attack preferredly the counterpart‘s sensitive areas
the revolutionary‘s side is based upon
1) learning, teaching, coaching and implementing the principles of non-violent resistance,
2) acting in self-defense to protect,
3) not getting misled by the opponent‘s attempts to provoke counter-violence,
4) attacking the counterpart‘s arsenal directly or indirectly by urging him to waste his weaponry and
5) exposing the opponent‘s weakness behind the armory to convince major parties no longer to support him.
So far the theory.
In this studies I'm only reflecting my personal thoughts. I'm a human and therefore far from being perfect. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas about this in my opinion important topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment