Non-violent resistance has many forms. From peaceful protests to civil disobedience the people have a lot of tools to express their will for change. All the methods have in common to act united and organized with words, deeds and physical presence.
But if the regime officials‘ answer contains only aggressive manners to maintain their power emotions may stake high. Understandable being confronted with shocking images and terrible descriptions of murdered civilians, children being shot and activists tortured to death. More understandable if the victims are your brothers, your relatives or your friends.
One of those non-violent resistance methods is the petition. In the digital age it‘s much more easier to collect the required signatures than in the times you have to stand in the streets or ring a hundreds of door bells to raise awareness and to convince your fellows to share the demands with you. Besides you don‘t have to bear the disappointing moments if someone refuses to sign your request after spending a certain time to explain him or her your motives. The online petition is indeed an advance in relation to the archaic method: if you like to join you click and sign with your mail address; if not you simply ignore the virtual inquiry.
Most petitions forwarded to me included demands mainly written in the imperative. Since the good old days of the ruled A4-sheet until nowadays it‘s a kind of common sense to wrap the content in a blatant language like ,Do!‘, ,Must!‘, ,Sign!‘. Yes, many may argue now that you have to shout out loud to get a feedback and that you literally wanna 'sell' your suit. Objection. The petitioner definitely don't want to sell his demand, he/she wants to 'collect', to convince as many addressed as possible to join to take action. The comparison to the commercial aspect downgrades the petition idea. The blatancy however may support your efforts getting heard in a world being louder then ever. It underlines more or less dramatically the acuteness of some requires, f.ex. to prevent ongoing violence or to stop immediately the deportation of a political prisoner in his homeland where he faces death penalty.
But if the regime officials‘ answer contains only aggressive manners to maintain their power emotions may stake high. Understandable being confronted with shocking images and terrible descriptions of murdered civilians, children being shot and activists tortured to death. More understandable if the victims are your brothers, your relatives or your friends.
One of those non-violent resistance methods is the petition. In the digital age it‘s much more easier to collect the required signatures than in the times you have to stand in the streets or ring a hundreds of door bells to raise awareness and to convince your fellows to share the demands with you. Besides you don‘t have to bear the disappointing moments if someone refuses to sign your request after spending a certain time to explain him or her your motives. The online petition is indeed an advance in relation to the archaic method: if you like to join you click and sign with your mail address; if not you simply ignore the virtual inquiry.
Most petitions forwarded to me included demands mainly written in the imperative. Since the good old days of the ruled A4-sheet until nowadays it‘s a kind of common sense to wrap the content in a blatant language like ,Do!‘, ,Must!‘, ,Sign!‘. Yes, many may argue now that you have to shout out loud to get a feedback and that you literally wanna 'sell' your suit. Objection. The petitioner definitely don't want to sell his demand, he/she wants to 'collect', to convince as many addressed as possible to join to take action. The comparison to the commercial aspect downgrades the petition idea. The blatancy however may support your efforts getting heard in a world being louder then ever. It underlines more or less dramatically the acuteness of some requires, f.ex. to prevent ongoing violence or to stop immediately the deportation of a political prisoner in his homeland where he faces death penalty.
Back to the language of non-violent resistance. To express a serious demand in a soft tone without insulting the addressed is the first step of the rhetoric escalation principle. We can watch it when the officials worldwide begin to critizise unpopular rulers and their behavior towards the human rights. If they refuse to react after a while the next addresses contain the same message, this time strengthened through more distinct words. Should the despots continue to ignore the messages the expression of the demands is becoming clearer, in the case of Syria we heard in the last months accompanying terms like 'we are sending a strong signal' or 'we condemn the ongoing violence in our strongest terms'. The imperative is chosen by officials as a kind of ultima ratio before actions like sanctions or in a real serious case military intervention will follow.
Petitioners aren't politicians but in the case of non-violent rhetoric every option to express the concerns about a critical situation has to be used. Off course it's even smarter to start with an appeal in a softened tone but sometimes the events are coming thick and fast and the emotions on the side of the victims and their supporters are boiling up. In a fervid atmosphere reasonable arguments are having rarely a chance getting heard. Therefore implementing afterwards the first step of the escalation ladder is more than a stylistic device. It expresses the ability of the regime critics and the dissidents to use a softened tone as a weapon. Tyrants and rulers are less known for their insight doing something wrong. By presenting our own ability to use a peaceful language we reproach them the mirror in a defying manner. It'll show clearly that we are not the ones stirring up aggression - one of the main arguments Assad uses since months.
I hope your words can be heard...! thanx.
ReplyDelete