The Quiet Power of Pacifism

Note: This article was originally written in 2014, and some references might reflect that time. I’m choosing to begin my Medium journey by sharing it because the themes of war, strategy, and pacifism feel especially relavant in today’s world. While the context might have evolved, the core question remains deeply resonant.

Since the dawn of civilization, human beings have been violent. We’ve had battles, wars; we’ve killed each other over conflict of interests throughout our existence. The recent events in Ukraine and Syria are a grim reminder of the same. As we evolved and living in communities became a norm, this primitive instinct has been a source of a lot of historical shame splattered across the countries, ethnicities and religions.

Today, more or less, people agree that deaths shouldn’t take place, and that wars are expensive and not worth the costs and should be avoided as far as possible. However, and this is an important distinction, sometimes, wars are inevitable. That’s what we’re led to believe. Even if we don’t want to kill people, enough provocation and sometimes people have no choice. They HAVE to bomb-slash­-drone-slash-gun down the opposition *for the greater good*. Pacifism then, is often shot down for being too idealistic. Weak. Ineffective. Too theoretical.

Is it true? Before going into a defense, let’s first define Pacifism. Pacifism is a set of beliefs where people pledge their allegiance to no war and non violence. Violence, in this context, refers solely to the violation of the non-aggression principle. Pacifism is strategic resistance; it aims at cutting off the source of power of the oppressor.

What IS power? Power, as Hannah Arendt contends, is not a property of an individual. Power of the head of a country depends on obedience and cooperation of the public. In the long run, government systems cannot be held together by the force of pressure, but the belief in truthfulness with which they represent and promote the interest of the public. It is a relationship formed by granting the power from below. And what has been granted can just as easily be withdrawn. Pacifism relies on this withdrawal of power. Violence intends to do the same thing, so the only rational thing while proclaiming Pacifism as an alternate to the conventional killing strategy is to compare the effects of both of them. Why would a non violent struggle be better than a violent one?

Let’s delve into the psychology of violence, for starters. People who threaten violence are relying on the fear of the people. Their intention is tokill a few, and set a precedent for all that’d follow. Letting go of the fear makes the threat void of any power. If the oppressor knows that his violence won’t be effective in shutting people down, his choice of weapon has no significance. I pretty transparent example of the same would be the Anna Hazare fill-the-jails movement a while back. Threat of jail was ineffective precisely because that wasn’t a deterrent. The threat had no power. Secondly, violence begets violence. It legitimizes further violence. “I kill because you kill because I kill” is a vicious cycle that really doesn’t have any end. Its painfully easy to get offended and pass on the revenge gene, unfortunately. It’s regressive because it helps shift the focus awayfrom the issue at hand to the violence at hand- which is a big loss to the revolutionaries on both counts. They lose the sympathy, and they lose the cause. Lastly, violence excludes a lot of people from the revolution, because of the virtue of their method- which means it is not necessary for the violent people to have a cause that resonates with the people. The people who forward their ‘issues’ are the ones who have the strength, and the one with larger ammunitions win. It sets up a dangerous precedent, the precedent whose effect has been felt time and again in the world power struggles.

So yes, violence has a lot of pitfalls. How does non-violence overcome it though?

This is where a lot of misconceptions regarding Pacifism come in. Pacifism is not non action; neither is it going into a grenade field to make a point. It does not equate to ‘sensitization of the global world regarding the issue’ although that is an important part of a successful non violent campaign. Very broadly, a successful non violent revolution consists of two steps. First, recognition the source of power of the oppressor. It might be moral, economic, religious, or a mix of some of them.

Gene Sharp, on the issue of power elaborates on the point rather eloquently, “There is moral authority: Do the people giving the orders have the right to give them? There is economic power. There is control of the masses. Hitler didn’t have three brains, you know; he got other people convinced that what he was doing was important and that they should help.”

And then, we cut off the sources of this power. Demonstrations. Petitions. Strikes. Boycotts. Tax resistance. Blockades. Gene Sharp outlined 198 methods of non violent revolt, which can be accessed here.

Thus, just showing the world that your opponent is horrible isn’t enough. A successful non violent attack is calculated, shrewd and disciplined. There is a definite objective in mind. An objective more concrete than “we don’t like the government”, even though it resonates with a lot of people. This objective becomes the measure of success of the revolution. To achieve this objective, we focus on the two step process outlined by Sharp- identify the source of power and eliminate it. Violence can be one of the tools here, but as I outlined- the cost of using the tool is too high. It is ultimately an ineffective tool to counter the power you are opposing, precisely because of the legitimacy you give to violence after that, and underemphasizing on the objective of the revolution.

If violence leads to a negative impact on a revolution, and a non violent action could have complemented the power struggle more effectively, it should definitely be discarded as a possible revolution tool. Violence is a crude tool that ultimately leads to weakening of the power of both, the victor and the vanquished, paraphrasing Machiavelli (the godfather of realism).

Summing up, non violence overcomes the pitfalls of using violence as a tool of revolution, by focusing on the actual issue and simultaneously weakening the power of the oppressor, and is a process that does not rely on the death count of the enemy to succeed. The power dynamics at play here are much more intricate and powerful than gunning down people to prove a point, and THIS is the reason is a much more powerful tool. Theviolence of a non violent revolution is not gunning down people; it is cutting off the power of the elite factions.

Pacifism might be a moral belief to some, but there is a pragmatic reason behind why it works.