An unreserved commitment to non-violent conflict resolution

Feb 01, 2009 Letters

Dear Editor,
You could not have lived on the lower East Coast, during the recent period of turbulence, without experiencing great misgivings. This was particularly so for people who were in positions such as I.

It was therefore perhaps essentially self interest that led me to give my personal support to the late Cedric Grant when he visited me in 2003 to canvas my opinion on a project on nonviolent conflict resolution that he was conceiving.

Though violence is prevalent in both our domestic and social contexts, except in obvious cases of self defence, its use to acquire personal or social ends is generally frowned upon, and at least publicly condemned.

However, in relation to social projects, it is public support that is essential for success and long term viability.

These are some of the thoughts that went through my mind as I read Tacuma Ogunseye’s “The work of Ronald Waddell ….” (Kaieteur News 31/01/09) and particularly his comment that: “Two important weaknesses or shortcomings in the last phase of the struggle were the failure of militants to win the support of important organisations in the African community, and their failure to explain to the nation, to the region and to the world their justification for the course of action they embarked on.” Regardless of how just a case one may propagate, or whether violence was seen as a “last resort”, it is questionable how much sympathy our society will show if violence grabs the centre stage.

My contention, then, is that what would be more amenable at both the domestic and social levels is a commitment to an undiluted nonviolent approach.

Notwithstanding the praise that is at present being showered on the nonviolent antecedents who have brought Barack Obama to the US presidency, there are still those who believe that nonviolence is for wimps and at best should be kept in the domestic setting.

But is this so, and what does history actually teach?
A 2005 study by Freedom House entitled ‘How Freedom is Won’, which evaluated 67 transitions to democracy over the last 30 years, found that 17 were the product of elite accommodation and 50 were in large part driven by nonviolent civil resistance.

Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, who studied the strategic effectiveness of violent and nonviolent campaigns in conflicts between state and non-state actors between 1900 and 2006 in ‘Why Civil Resistance Works,’ concluded thus.

“Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns”. (There are many more such discourses on the Web)

Since many people view the nonviolent approach as ‘passive and pacifist’, they tend to be skeptical of its value. However, as Ackerman and Kruegler, in their ‘Strategic Nonviolent Conflict’ study of six historical nonviolent episodes argued, this is not the case.

They said, for example, that: “… the Ruhrkampf (German resistance to French occupation in 1923) directed against the French included the open harassment of French military personnel. More recently, the Philippine ‘Peoples Power’ revolution in 1986 involved tense confrontations between demonstrators and the military.”

Gene Sharp in ‘Are there Realistic Alternatives?’ outlined some 198 civil resistance methods, and as Stephan and Chenoweth have stated, “… whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.”

In his time, Cheddi Jagan has been vilified by international and local governments and other institutions as, inter alia, an unbending communist and saboteur. Yet, for the most part, he remained well respected and liked by Afro Guyanese.

Even given his well recognised commitment to working class unity etc., I believe that had he followed some of his more “radical” supporters and appeared to be associated with an armed uprising that cost Afro-Guyanese lives, the situation would have been very different.

A nonviolent approach is more likely to win over elements of a regime’s community base and its institutional support, and this is vital for immediate success and long run democratic stability.
An unreserved commitment to nonviolent conflict resolution in all our social and domestic interactions, far from being a sign of weakness, can contribute to the development of the kind of society we all desire.
Dr. Henry B. Jeffrey

Latest News

An unreserved commitment to non-violent conflict resolution

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Diamond Mineral Water Indoor Hockey Festival returns for 19th edition

Louis 97, Athanaze 90 give West Indies slight...

Vladimir Woodroofe backs out of World...

Exciting Double-header bowls off today with...

YMCA and Hard Knocks battle for Futsal supremacy...

Sukhwa delighted to score most runs at GCB...

Features/Columnists

Let us not be silent witnesses!

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

Welcome, Mr. PM

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

An unreserved commitment to non-violent conflict resolution

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]