Main Article

I am not a pacifist. There clearly times when physical action needs to be taken to defend life and property and, in rare cases, to depose tyrants.� However, there is a world of difference between strategic defensive actions aimed at protecting life and property within communities and the use of indiscriminate acts of violence and intimidation that threaten life and property within those same communities.

At one stage in my life I approached issues of domestic political� conflict from a completely different perspective. However I have come to realise that not only is physical violence counterproductive as a means of resolving conflict, it is wholly incompatible with the best principles of loyal citizenship. If loyal citizenship involves a duty of loyalty to my fellow citizens, which includes the protection of their physical, mental and material well-being,� then I dare not engage in any wanton activity that would place in jeopardy that sense of well-being.

Violent protest may in some cases deliver short-term gains but those gains will invariably have to be defended by even more violence or by threats of violence. More importantly, the degree of damage inflicted in terms of broken human relationships and the weakening of community infrastructures makes any violent resolution of conflict a hollow victory indeed. It is something that we must reject and I would urge all who value a citizenship that is based on peace, stability and respect for� diversity� to embrace policies and programmes of non-violence as a means of addressing differences.

Unlike violent protest action, the outcome of genuine non-violent action is reconciliation and enriched citizenship. As Martin Luther King Jnr once stressed, �non-violence does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding�.

Viewed from a moral perspective the use of violent public protests, where damage and harm is inflicted upon our fellow citizens and where our own taxes have to be redirected to pay compensation, is a futile and self-destructive exercise. It is an engagement in self-inflicted injury� through which the most vulnerable in our society� become the victims of our� anger and our inability to address critical situations in a rational and strategic manner.

All citizens have a constitutional right to protest against policies and programmes which they believe to be wrong and unjust. They also have an inalienable moral right to resist policies and programmes which they perceive to be aimed at the erosion of their rights, their liberties and their cultural identity. Such resistance may well have to include strategically organized public assemblies, mass demonstrations and wildcat picketing. But it must never include acts of wanton destruction, personal violence or intimidation against fellow citizens. That is a violation of those basic principles of citizenship that are essential to the development of a just, equitable and prosperous society.

Such protests must complement rather than replace the democratic political process. They ought to be strategically planned, properly marshalled and effectively led by credible community and civic leaders. Crucially, there must be a solemn pledge and a practical commitment to non-violence. The objective of a protest must never over-ride the responsibility which we ought to have for the welfare of our fellow citizens.� Non-violence is not simply an absence of physical violence. There must also be an absence of verbal violence. That places an awesome responsibility on those who organise public protests to lead by example in both word and deed

Non-violent activism is not a soft option. It demands much in terms of commitment, courage, self-control and moral argument. Again, to quote King, the non-violent activist �is passive or non-aggressive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive towards his opponent. But his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade the opponent that he is mistaken�.�

I am committed to non-violence because I am convinced that the power of� moral force and non-violent action will prove superior to physical force in the long term. The power of non-violent action has the capacity to� build stronger, more resilient and courageous people. The path of non-violence is tougher and requires infinitely more courage and moral strength to engage in than does physical violence.

�Consequently, it is not merely an exercise in peaceful conflict resolution, it is also an exercise in personal and communal character building.� Likewise, the force of moral argument � the kind of rational argument that� informs the minds of both our opponents and the watching world - has the capacity to achieve better results than arguments that appeal to raw emotions and violent instincts.

The Chartist leader, William Lovell, once argued that any victory achieved through violence �would be a defeat (for) the just principles of democracy� and �must necessarily throw back for centuries our intellectual and moral progress�.� On the other hand, a resolution gained through non-violence and the force of� moral argument will enrich and enhance the democratic process and help us to build a better society for our children. Surely that is what we all want.

A Plea for Non-Violence