•  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 

Training Ourselves in Nonviolence to Speak Truth to Power

By Mr. Theodore Herman

Director Emeritus of Peace Studies, Colgate University, USA

 

This paper is my third version of one prepared for the recent International Conference on Peace and Nonviolent Action, sponsored by the Jains, And held at Rajsamand, Rajasthan, India, 17-21 February 1991. I am taking this revisionist liberty because the theme of the Conference. "Evolving a Viable System to Train and Orient People in Ahimsa (Nonviolence)" is very important in today's world, and because we do far too much talking to ourselves rather than to those who make so many decisions over others. However, the main reason for my delay is that I could not urge an action on anyone else until I had tried it first and could then speak from experience. This I have now done.

The Conference was organized to produce some ideas on training in nonviolence that might be used worldwide, but all of us were overwhelmed during that meeting by the war going on in the Gulf. Among other things, that war kept me asking some very simple questions: how did it get started, were there other ways to deal with the issues and most of all, who gave those two national leaders, Messrs Bush (USA) and Hussein (Iraq) the authority to bring so much death and destruction to thousands of innocent people, both soldiers and non-soldiers? Where did those two men get the power to threaten the whole world? And, therefore, how can we ordinary people influence those in power toward more peaceful ways to settle quarrels?

It is this last question that I want to explore as a goal of training in nonviolence. for I do have some experience in trying to touch those who make decisions that affect many others. And so does every person who teaches.

The culture of fear : First, I must point out that national leaders, like the rest of us, are products of the age-old culture of fear. Over many centuries most groups have devoted much of their resources and energy to making war and repressing their own members. Just think how much of our wealth and technology, our social organisation, our history, and our arts have glorified war, In times of crisis, most people and their leaders do not seriously try to find other ways to meet the situation. So, honour and glory go to the warriors, not to the peacemakers. The same code of punishment and revenge runs through our own lives as well. We find very few societies without some forms of oppression of others, and so we find that all societies have laws and customs to regulate their struggles for the basic things of life - food, clothing, protection, and so on. Just why do we need to fear others today?

Even more puzzling in the Gulf war we saw two men with a strong resolve - an obsession - to bring down the other, pushed on by the traditions and values of their own distant cultures. Neither knew much about the other's world. Neither spoke the other's language. Neither paid much attention to their own specialists, if indeed they even sought such advice before publicly vilifying the other. Both drew on their previous habit of attacking their neighbours by force and deceit. And neither had effective opposition at home or from the rest of the world.

Is this assent because most people are also not trained to question authority, especially when their own tribe or country faces a crisis? The answer is obvious. Most of us simply do not know about alternatives to violence. Even though we do resolve differences at home and at work peaceably everyday, when we are angry or frustrated, we turn to behavior that may indeed become violent. Decision-makers are not much different, especially where they are not constantly held accountable for their acts. Usually under strong pressure, driven by their ego, cut off from other views, they too often turn to damaging or even violent responses in one form or another. The more pressing the issue, the less time they may have to find better answers. It does take time and calm to think about the longer future, and to convince others. Most leaders, like other human beings, need training and practice in creating alternatives to violence that affect public policy.

Such education is our job, because, distant as we seem to be from decision-makers, no one else is around to do it. And, as educators of one kind or another, we must be concerned about power and how it should be used for the common good. While it is true that everyone cannot join in making all the decisions, we can develop a climate of behavior that influences those who do have such responsibilities. And sometimes we can even touch decision-makers directly on crisis issues. Let us consider four ways in which we can ourselves learn to speak truth to power.

Learning to Speak Truth to Power
1. Relations with our students : The most obvious way for educators at any level - including those outside the formal education structure - is through our students. By occasionally deserting the comfortable guru method of lectures, we can promote activities of social value that join all of us together as learners. That is democracy in action because it rests on our belief in the worth of each person no matter how different, uninformed and rebellious. For example, in the United States a number of schools are training groups of students and teachers in the peaceful resolution of conflict among their peers. Why should such teacher- student projects not be extended to the whole community?

In such a relationship we have the opportunity to teach the whole person, not just the future chemist or manager or social worker. For many teachers and students, working together in the laboratory, or on the playing field grows into a continuing relationship of mutual learning that stretches well into the student's adult years. Some of these students will become decision-makers in government, business, education, and so on, and may occasionally take a few minutes to get in touch with their teachers even when their job and their salary and their reputation are far greater than their teacher's. And some can also open doors to others.

And even when there is no longer a direct tie, we never know when some experience in our earlier relationship will be a guide to another and to oneself. I believe that all of us can look back on our own influences to find many examples of this often unnoticed and almost forgotten relationship. If the relationship was a joint search for truth Gandhi's satyagrah- the seed will have been firmly planted. This is the most obvious way to speak truth to power for nonviolence.

2. Creating a climate of nonviolence : If so much of our culture tells us to be suspicious and afraid of others, then we must explore how to create the opposite. We need to study history and rewrite it to show that people everywhere have come together on occasion to oppose war itself with nonviolence, to resist injustice with nonviolent strikes and boycotts, to avoid oppressive or tyrannical government by forming their own organisations for needed services, and to help others by setting up neighbourhood projects and so create unity. We urgently need people's history in order to put life into the history of governments.

Famous examples of the first are the unarmed Shanti Sena or Peace Army formed by Gandhi in India in 1922 and its successors, such as the World Peace Brigade in East Africa, 1962, and the UN Peacekeeping Forces in the 1950s. These have led to Peace Brigades International and Witness for Peace that protect people threatened by killers in several Third World countries. Another famous example is the long public protest in the United States against the Vietnam War that turned President Johnson from seeking another term and finally led to withdrawal in 1975.

Examples of the second are many with the nonviolent resistance struggles so common in the 20th Century in various parts of the world. Some of these failed at first, as in Czarist Russia in 1905 and in South Africa in 1914, but eventually they succeeded through various nonviolent methods. While there is no guarantee that such efforts will automatically bring about better conditions, the very fact that oppressed people will eventually stand up against their oppressors, whether by using violence or nonviolence or both, should be a constant lesson of history, both to those who despair and to those who strive to remain on top.

New peoples organisations are also appearing in many parts of the Third World. In Latin America for example, marketing cooperatives are offering attractive handicrafts for foreign markets, while in Bangladesh and Kenya many small mutual loan societies, the famous Grameen banks, are meeting the needs of poor people that the regular banks will not serve. It was this common need that led the exploited textile workers of Rochdale, England, to form the first cooperative society in 1849 and that has since become a movement of many forms around the world. Peoples' base communities in Latin America also operate churches, schools, health care services, and the like where government writ does not run. This is Gandhi's Constructive Programme for maintaining human dignity against the systemic violence of modern economic exploitation.

Even temporary local projects such as repairing a bridge or a well or forming a school can bring people together beyond creed, caste, and class. Such efforts give practical experience in organising for nonviolent action which, in turn, creates a climate for nonviolence. All such efforts should be part of our teaching to encourage people to try to meet their own needs on their own.

Such activities need to be publicised. Early in his career in South Africa, Gandhi spread the account of his struggles to remove discriminatory laws against Indians to India and to England, both as pressure on the government there and to educate others to his nonviolent methods of resisting official injustice. Today we realise that publicity is such an important tool in resistance that those in opposition will always try to counter or suppress the reports.

Two of the marks of traditional societies are the close ties among those who have been born into limited groups, such as families, villages, language groups, religious sects, and the like, while the other is to exalt the group's history of domination by others. In this way, tribal histories preserve the memory of their ancient protectors, generally warrior-rulers, our modern war heroes.

In today's world such exclusiveness is not possible, since all life - human and non­human - is endangered. Because we can no longer afford enemies, our heroes must be those who preserve all life every where, our peace heroes. This is the way of nonviolence.

3. Support for better leaders : A third way to speak truth to power is to openly support in every way possible those leaders who work for nonviolent solutions to conflicts. We know that a democratic style increases loyalty and enthusiasm, and always remember with affection the friendly boss who turns to his/her employees for help or advice, and offers the same to them when asked.

Support is deserved by those who do their jobs well and honestly so that people will trust those in power and the fairness of the system. Helpful criticism and praise when deserved builds bridges that can lead to more human relationship since the leader is also a human being with the same needs for praise and friendly contact as everyone else. I am reminded of the manager of a bank near me where his door is always open, and employees and customers alike address him by his first name. He, in turn, does the same with them. As a result he can always count on most of the community to offer their help when he turns to help the larger community.

On the other side, I believe that those who violate the public trust should be held personally responsible. If, for example, a large corporation pollutes an area, those actually responsible, regardless of rank, should be required by the authorities to join in the clean-up, no matter where their own families happen to live or the business is harmed. If a police officer or a public prosecutor lies or conceals evidence, he/she should serve time in prison no matter what the verdict is for the accused. Peace rests on justice

Earlier in this paper I referred to the many people's movements that have led to the overthrow of tyrannical governments. Now the problem is more complicated because every tyrant is aided by a large number of people who suppress the opposition in every way possible. In this age, the horrors are known to us all, When a tyrant is overthrown, should all those who served him/ her be brought to trial, or just those who made the policies and gave instructions? And what of the courts that bowed to the military and the police? How and where should the victims and their loved ones find justice? In contrast to an individual wrongdoer, can the injustice of a brutal society or its regime be righted by nonviolent means? Ancient as these questions are, they are just as real today as they have always been, for violence arises from our fears, from our frustrations in reaching for perfection, from our inability to suffer for reconciliation.

One obvious answer where the courts are too weak to act would be for individuals to cut off all personal contact with those culprits whose high rank puts them above the law. Such people's justice would send a clear message to the whole society that reconciliation rests first on the wrongdoer admitting his/her offences and seeking to make amends. Public scorn is present for a time anyway, and to express it openly as each person sees fit would, I believe, express the principle that those in power will be held responsible for their actions. It would certainly strengthen support for those leaders committed to nonviolence.

4. In1Iuencing the decision-makers : To gain support for nonviolence more widely it is necessary to convince those in power of its benefits to their own enterprise and to society in general. Nonviolence rests on mutual respect for each person, and a commitment to transform confrontation into a joint search for a more creative ongoing relationship. Going back to work after a long contract dispute does not always solve the problems that lead to the next dispute. At the public level, the savings would be considerable if we could reduce our police. our prisons, and the constant framing of more laws to regulate conduct. It is no secret that any organisation that has the willing cooperation of all its members is both more efficient and more economical than one beset with a mass of regulations, penalties. and overseers for enforcement.

The three previous steps offered in this paper show how we can develop contacts with those in power and support for a public acceptance of nonviolence. We could encourage people to seek some training, especially in learning how to resolve conflicts peaceably. The place to begin is in our own home and organizations. If only to learn about our own needs and strengths as peacemakers. This is another lesson that we can learn from the lives of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. They started from where they were and with those around them, and expanded both their knowledge and their vision as they grew. Anyone who pursues nonviolence will grow in the same way.

We can speak of these things to those in power, if we remember that they too are human beings with the same desire that we have to do a good job as parents and officials. In times of difficulty, most would welcome alternative ideas from concerned people in whom they have confidence that they have no other motives in mind. But again, the good relationship must be built up on our record of civic purpose expressed in nonviolence rather than in the usual ego­ exalting political challenges so often seen in public life.

The ideal way to promote nonviolence would be to include it in its many forms of theory and practice in our schools and colleges. Also to offer training to those working at any kind of job, perhaps sponsored by their organisation or business for people at all levels. If all this seems too visionary, let us ask how the habit of competition, both honest and not so honest, keeps its high value in our lives. Of course competition is important to bring out many wonderful things in human behavior, but the world is also troubled by some of the effects of too much selfishness and oppression of others.

Finally, I have become increasingly skeptical about meetings and conferences that attract only those already convinced. As one way to bring nonviolence into the work-a-day world of government and business and education and religion and the professions, I would like to have some conferences, with a sizable number of such people so that we could share problems through role-playing, simulations, and other means that would improve our understanding of nonviolence especially for resolving conflicts. Such session would gain the support of many leaders and bring real learning to us all.

In conclusion, I believe that those who would be trained and would train others in nonviolence must look beyond nonviolence as primarily a way to solve conflicts and to dethrone oppressors. After all, we do know many ways to deal with confrontations if we would only think about them occasionally. It is much more difficult to transform confrontation to reconciliation so that adversaries, we and others, can work together without fear and suspicion.

Most needed, of course, is to make real the view that nonviolence can be a way of life where individuals and their institutions promote peace and justice. Or, as George Fox, founder of the Quakers, said in 1651 in refusing to join Cromwell's army:

"I told them that I lived in the spirit of the life and power that took away the occasion of all wars;"

Every great spiritual leader, including Gandhi, has taught that vision of the future as a challenge to make a better world for all. If we teachers don't cultivate that understanding of nonviolence, who will?

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Article Source : Anuvibha Reporter ( Special Issue : Dec. 2000 )
Ahimsa, Peacemaking, Conflict Prevention and Management Proceedings and Presentations
Fourth International Conference on Peace and Nonviolent Action ( IV ICPNA )
New Delhi : Nov. 10-14, 1999

-----------------------------------------------------

Mail to : Ahimsa Foundation
www.jainsamaj.org
R090904