“Although ostensibly a moral stance, in practice nonviolent resistance is

highly pragmatic”

• Gregg describes nonviolence as “moral jiu-jitsu”

• Nature of the nonviolent resister hugely important; he must believe in “the underlying unity of all life and eternal values…of the human spirit.”

• Bharadwaj: a movement based on pragmatism prepares itself for self-defeat.

• If a movement’s focus becomes success and power, this will lead to a half-hearted acceptance of nonviolence which leads to “the eventual corruption or destruction of the good end.”

Nonviolence as a moral stance

Gandhi and principled nonviolence

• Satyagraha derived from “higher principles”.• Utter moral conviction in nonviolence was

vital to its success – Gandhi’s absolute determination not to give in “was allied to a belief that the strength to maintain the fight comes from God” (Overy)

• Nonviolence was a way of life; Gandhi wrote of the “strenuous course of training to attain a mental state of nonviolence”

• Religious origin accounts for the movement’s success – more “credible” and was able to “attract a large following of true believers.”

MLK and principled nonviolence

• Placed importance on personal purity; must “avoid internal violence of spirit.”

• Principle of agape at the centre of the Civil Rights Movement

• “redemptive good will for all” and “the love of God working in the minds of men.”

Gandhi/MLK and pragmatic nonviolence

• Whilst they both did have strong moral beliefs, this was not the most important aspect of their nonviolent campaigns

• Gandhi’s principles were influential in the development of satyagraha but do not account for its success; he was not as “a moralist living strictly according to religious principles and refusing to bend them” (Overy)

• MLK – members of his movement were pragmatic: James Lawson approached the Nashville lunch-counter protests “like a man of science” and Diane Nash joined the movement because it was “the only game in town”

• Pragmatic rather than principled

Gene Sharp

• The ‘Machiavelli’ of Nonviolence

• From Dictatorship to Democracy (1993). All regimes rely on pillars of support and, with a proper strategy, these can be withdrawn non-violently.– Spread like wildfire as a result of its usability

• He made it his mission to show how effective nonviolent political action has been – compiled a list of 198 methods in his magnum opus The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973)

• He made it his mission to show how effective nonviolent political action has been – compiled a list of 198 methods in his magnum opus The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973)

• For Sharp, nonviolence is not a way of life, but one response to the problem of how to act effectively in politics and how to wield power

• Sharp does not consider the transformative effect of non violent action e.g. empowerment/openness/participation etc. Limited to achievement of extrinsic goals

Ackerman and Duvall

• ‘Those who used nonviolent action in our stories did not come to make peace. They came to fight’.

• ‘Gandhi and Martin Luther King mean that non-violent action is ‘stereotyped as a moral rather than a pragmatic choice, thereby obscuring its strategic value in conflicts’

• Effective non-violent action ‘has little to do with shouting slogans and putting flowers in the barrel of a gun. It has everything to do with separating governments from their means of control’

Origins of Sharp’s Thought• Conscientious objector in 1950s to Korean War – jailed for 2 years

• Gandhi Wields the Weapon of Moral Power (1960)

• Member of the Gandhi Peace Foundation, a center for the study of Gandhian techniques in New Delhi

• Civillian Defence (1964) Adam Roberts (eds)‘All the authors in this booklet consider that non-violent action should be judged, not in terms of a doctrine which one may accept or reject, but as a technique, the potentialities of which in particular situations demand the most rigorous and careful study’

• “In the US, during the civil rights struggle, both sides used these techniques. In the bus boycott, when black people organised car-sharing in protest against segregation, their opponents refused to sell them gasoline and cancelled insurance policies on their cars. I don’t think that was a wonderful thing to do, but it’s certainly better than lynching.”

Mini-Conclusion

• Search for different ends– Gandhi

•search for truth, aimed at addressing the existential effects of being dominated and of being the dominator

– Sharp•social and political freedom•How may historical nonviolent

movements have sought the former?

3rd supporting argument: Principled adherence to NV enhancing its pragmatism

Robert E. Klitgaard, ‘Gandhi’s non-violence as a tactic’, Journal of Peace Research, 8, 1971.

1.Applying Gandhian satyagraha to 2-party conflict models (game theory and prisoner’s dilemma) 2.Satyagraha inherently tactical/pragmatic, whether satyagrahis realise it or not

– The perception in the opponent that one is driven by ‘higher principles’ is advantageous

3.Limitations and considerations

The threat of disobedience and game theory

• Game theory usually involves parties aiming to maximise payoffs (maximisers)

• First mover advantage and use of believable threats to generate desired outcome

The use of threats • This is about citizens convincing the government that they are

prepared to disobey Via 2 methods

1. Lowering payoffs of the alternative action (i.e. obeying the regime)

2. Coming across as irrational/un-strategic/not interested in payoffs i.e. adhering to higher principles

• Repeated lowering of payoffs for the alternative choice is likely to be sussed out and countered, leaving method 2 the most likely to be continually successful

 Variables:Circled -1: dependant on how just/unjust the law in question is perceived. Determines citizen action (See Rawls) Circled -2: Magnitude depends on extent of CD and nature of the government

Government is naturally inclined to enforce law

But, if a maximiser, the citizens have some room for manoeuvre by appearing principally set on disobedience •Government faced with choice of -2 or -1 payoff – maximisers choose -1 •This represents the best possible payoff for the citizen, as the government may take steps to change the law etc.

Visually…

Key question: Can the citizen make a credible commitment/believably threaten civil disobedience through adherence to higher principles? Gandhi’s Satyagraha • Derived from higher principles

– Way of life; wide, multi-religious base; aim to transform modern civilisation

– Propagation of self-suffering: being willing to accept punishment without resistance e.g. Dharasana protest.

• Easy for government to believe that Gandhians are not maximisers/rationalists

– E.g. willingness to accept suffering/repression without resistance lowers the citizens’ payoffs considerably

– But, it is assumed that payoffs are not seen relative to the other side, so the government would rationally seek not to enforce to avoid its worst payoff

• An example of this working is when Gandhi agreed to call off the 1930-31 disobedience after Lord Irwin agreed to negotiate with him as an equal

– (does not guarantee that all objectives will be met)

Limitations and Considerations of this tactical conception

1. Gandhi and fasting i. Useful tool after becoming hugely public/global figure ii. A direct threat to lower government payoffs – eliminating opponent’s

options iii. Government cannot afford to let Gandhi die, but believe he is willing

to because he is basing his actions on higher principles iv. Is this violating the very ‘higher principles’ this is supposedly based

on? A coercive tactic

2. The problem of absolutist government (instead of maximiser)

i. If government fixed on its so-called higher principles i.e. rule of law, then it becomes a battle of which side is more absolute

ii. Gandhi realised this

iii. Limits effectiveness to more liberal regimes (Rawls – constitutional democracies)

iv. Relies on some form of sympathy towards plight of citizen

3. Contradictions when considering Gandhi’s long term/wider ambitions

i. Gandhi is more concerned with transformation of society

ii. Based on love and trust in one’s opponent iii. Prisoner’s dilemma: if both trust, both will be rewarded

= Gandhi’s ideal

Limitations and Considerations 2

• Because Gandhi is an absolutist and will always adhere to his higher principles, he will always choose to trust, thus always keeping his ideal scenario a possibility

• A maximising opponent (requirement for success in the previous scenarios), will not trust

4. Requiring too much to work?Must have large popular base following the same principles

– Cost of government enforcement in part based on extent of CD

– Must appear unwavering in principles: not always the case e.g. Chauri Chaura violence and suspension of 1920-22 non-cooperation

– If principles violated, there must be enough moral adherents to overshadow the violent/impure minority

Must contain true believers – too much for many to sacrifice?

Limitations and Considerations 3

Conclusion

• Bob Overy: Gandhi was able “to gear even his most idealistic campaigns to what was realistically achievable.”

• Despite obvious principled believers within some movements, one cannot escape the underlying pragmatism of nonviolent resistance

• A pragmatic understanding of nonviolent techniques is more important than a principled stance against the use of violence