Free However, Worse It Is That Any Case Where There Is Injustice With The People Over Their Right To Essay Sample

<Student Name>
<Instructor Name>
<Name and Section # of course>
<Assignment Title #>

Is peaceful movement much more effective than violent movement in our society?

Non-violent protests as compared to violent movements reap more rewards and are more successful, at lesser loss of life, property and respect. In order to retrieve their rights and claim their privileges, people in the past as well as they present have taken to various ways of protests and demonstrations against their leaders, governors or dictators. These can be done either in the ‘civil’ manner or otherwise resorting to arms and violence. Using the civil method has helped to bring about change, gradually yet certainly, proven to be exemplary to the world, as opposed to the bloodshed and chaos pursued with violent protestations. The right to protest is a right enjoyed by all alike, however, it must be kept in mind that when a group of people tends to overhaul a regime or speak up for a cause, it should be done in a manner that preserves the homes, lives and sanctity of the homes and citizens of a certain place, without harming any assets they possess. Although violent protests are useful in displaying the power the citizens and general people behold and it also shows the dire need they are in of getting rid of the problems they face due to any reason, yet sometimes violent demonstrations and movements can go on the plea that the people represent and can prove unfavorable for them in the long run. Peaceful movements, on the other hand, represent the unity amongst the people and also help to convey the important message that a certain nation or a race of people is civilized and knows well how to tackle situations in a peaceful, humane manner and this can reinforce a positive message across the globe, thereby putting an end to the ironic, violent means taken to restore peace in a society.
It was said in the past that violence is the only possible way to get rid of a dictatorial regime. The reason probably, that dictators do not tend to listen to public opinion, unlike the case in democracies where most of the decisions are led to public opinion. Without mob violence, display of arms and ammunition and the use of aggression, an authoritarian rule cannot be overcome and defeated. Peaceful protests and demonstrations were thought to be powerless against the tactics of violence and bloodshed in order to restore the desired ruler. However, that was the past. The changing trends in standing up to tyranny and oppression have shown a remarkable change and transition in the ways of protests, where non-violent means have outnumbered the success in protests over the violent ones. According to Chenoweth, “Non-violent protests are becoming increasingly successful”. (The Washington Post, 2015). According to statistics, ever since the end of the Cold War, the trend towards approaching protests has changed, and non-violent means are being preferred over violent ones. Research has proven that if only five of the population stands up against any government, they can make its survival near to impossible. And data also shows that in most of the major non-violent movements, a total of three and a half percent of the population stood up in unison which helped to topple the government altogether. This is because three and a half percent means millions of people participating in a peaceful movement in order to stand up for their rights which have to be recognized by their government and that forces the government to move back and hear the plea of its citizens.
Another example of the power and success of the non-violent movement and protest is that carried out by Nelson Mandela, who approved of the non-violent, civil uprising against the apartheid rule in South Africa. The example set by him and the people of Africa was a remarkable one where people resorted to peaceful means of protests and did not carry out any armed resistance. At the time of revolt, there were two main ideologies stirring up in the west; one that liberalization of White rule would come eventually as the people would soon give up their peaceful protests or that there would be a mass armed struggle between the minority whites and majority blacks that would lead to free them and get rid of the white rule. However, it was largely the unarmed, peaceful protesting that helped to bring about a revolution, and it brought success to the people both in South Africa and abroad.
The success of this non-violent protest was the deep thought and insight of the revolting black citizens. The white minority living in South Africa at the time was highly dependent on the majority blacks for their day to day needs and chores. When the blacks began to non-cooperate with the whites, it became alarming and difficult for the whites to carry on with their lives in the region.
On the other hand, the previous method of guerilla warfare and attacks deployed by the black race tended to favor the white minority governance and made the liberal leaders turn to support the white rule. (Mandela violence vs. nonviolence, 1999).
The same rule applies in the case of the toppling of other regimes and rulers where violence always leads to the adverse effects of any revolution. There comes a fifty percent chance of failure of any uprising if there is violence involved in it.
It gives the state then a reason to protest back and make the civilians the ‘bad guys’ in the game where they feel they have the right to use arms against the civilians in order to restore peace in the region. Then military and paramilitary forces get full rights to open fire at the citizens and go to any extent of bloodshed against them to normalize the situation. Also, it is a proven fact that the more violent any movement or uprising gets, the more it will unite the political and interior system of any government. (The Washington Post, 2015).
The use of violence is unfavorable because in many cases it can also cause the public opinion to shift from the sympathy of the protestors to the protested. Many people would dislike the idea of bloodshed and damage to property in this scenario. Similar is the case in the anti-apartheid movement where many conservative African leaders and military-backed away from helping the Africans in their violent protests since they were despaired and undetermined then to revolt against the white rule in this manner. The violent protests also labeled the African race as the ‘savages’ they already were, which brought a repelling response from the global community. As opposed to this, the non-violent protests gained the attention of the world and brought recognition to the matter.
There are, however, other aspects of violent movements such as those done for racial purposes where a minority race protests for its rights and justice. The case of Ferguson shooting was one that revealed the approach to violence in protests. Many people who label the black race as ‘thugs’ and ‘drug addicts’ who are prone to get violent and aggressive at any happening.

protests led to further violence at the hands of the police at Ferguson. It is claimed hypocritically on that side where America as a nation would resort to violence against the black race. (The Intercept, 2014).
The reason, why violence was justified in the case of Ferguson, was the main element of justice and respect that was demanded by the people living there. Reasons differ for various acts and in a country where on the one hand equality and justice are preached to all, there remain injustice and discrimination to those who makeup sixty-seven percent of the population and are the biggest targets of violence. Hence in this matter, people justified their violent protests and movements against the white-majority police and officials who were responsible for taking the life of an innocent citizen in the state. Yet, there could not be any less retaliation by the police against the protests where the protestors were subjected to more violence. Perhaps, if peaceful demonstrations would have been held instead, the situation might have been different and eventually the police would have had to become to the citizens. Like the Missouri highway control captain said revolution can only be accomplished by using our voices and not by destroying one’s community, this applies to the black citizens who perhaps fail to recognize their community as their own. (The Intercept, 2014). It lies in the hands of the protestors to choose their way and remaining peaceful has always proved fruitful.
As we place comparisons of the past and present, there are some powerful personalities that have brought change and revolution through their peaceful measures of demonstrations and movements. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi are two eminent personalities that are famous in this aspect.
Comparing them to the pacifists of the twentieth century, one can note the drastic differences between their ways of protests. On the one hand, King had limited vision in respect of the undertaken peaceful protests, where he only wanted equality for the colored race. On the other hand, Gandhi was practicing non-violence against colonialism forcing the British to leave the subcontinent. Both these leaders used non-violence in their protests and forced to mold the image of their races in the eyes of the world. Comparing them to continental Europe, most of the wars and revolutions were based purely on violence and anarchy. (Philosophy Now, 2015). King helped to spread awareness of the good will and positivity of his race and their clean intentions and on the other hand, Gandhi helped to move the British out of the subcontinent due to the economic and political situations that followed the non-cooperative yet non-violent movements.
Non-violent protests are the only answer to successful fulfillment of demands and rights held forth via any protest. They are listened to, and they put the protested side into a no win situation. Violent protests often lead to more disaster and destruction and, therefore, prove a failure in themselves. In today’s more cultured and educated world, it is hence more appropriate to hold peaceful protests and bring one’s point of view against an idea in a more civilized manner so that an amicable solution can be reached, without any harm or destruction.

References

Fisher, Max. The Washington Post. Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for
toppling dictators. Web. 5 Nov, 2013. N.pag. 19 Feb, 2015
Popular Resistance.org. Mandela Violence vs non violence. Web . n.d N.pag. 19 Feb 2015.
Tenenbaum, Yoav J. Philosophy Now. The success and failure of Nonviolence. Web 2014. 19
Feb, 2015
Thomson, Juan. The Intercept. No justice, No respect: Why the Ferguson Riots were justified.
Web. 12 Jan 2014. N.pag. 19 Feb, 2015