Etcetera has waded in on the arrest of Radio Biafra
Director, Nnamdi Kanu and the protests by his supporters. Read…
My brother, kekwanu? I don’t know if it is politically
correct to congratulate you on your release from detention. But now that you
are out, it is proper to take into consideration that “peaceful protest – slow
and steady – will always win the race to create change” in the ways that the
Igbo nation is being perceived and treated by the Federal Government of
Nigeria.
People have questioned and debated the effectiveness of this
tactics: Is peaceful protest the best way to make your voice heard? Or is there
a time when a smaller violence is the right response in the face of an even
more violent injustice? Are the tenets of non-violence holding back change that
could happen with a more aggressive fight?
These questions were asked-and acted upon-in the 1960’s
during the height of the civil right movement. They are asked all around the
world every time a protest movement or armed faction has aimed at toppling a
government from its perch.
But only in the last few years have researchers started to
answer these questions by looking at the data. And it turns out the data says
something hopeful. In the face of even the worst oppression, violence is not
the answer. Peaceful movements are simply more effective.
I want you to consider how much non-violent movements have
shaped societies in the 20th and 21st centuries, from the fall of the Soviet
Union in the 1980s to the Arab Spring and Gandhi’s movement in 1919 to the coup
that killed Murtala Muhammed in 1966. You will discover that non-violent
campaigns were successful against government repression more than twice the
success rate of their violent counterparts. Not only that, you will find that
the success rate of violent insurgencies has actually been declining in recent
decades, and that non-violent resistance campaigns have a stronger tendencies
to lead to a democratic government and lasting peace later on.
You are championing a course at a propitious time that the
nation is basking on the euphoria of a “change” of government. As the Arab
spring democracy movement has swept through Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the wave
of strong non-violent movement has become the only way, whether it’s fighting
for political rights in Hong Kong, an end to police brutality in Ferguson in
the US, against corruption in Mexico, or the fall of a dictator in Burkina
Faso.
We have never, in history, seen such a mass mobilisation
like we are seeing in the last one or two decades. Imagine what would happen if
this potent people-powered method is applied to the Biafran campaign. Some of
our Igbo brothers are misunderstanding non-violence as a passive form of
resistance. I have heard some say it is not a powerful tool of confrontation
against oppression and marginalisation. Non-violence is actually a tool that is
more effective because it attracts a critical mass of participation. Two of the
most celebrated non-violence heroes, Gandhi and Mandela, are viewed as saints
today, even as “they were filling up the prisons” then. Don’t misunderstand me,
non-violent can also be aggressive, brave, and strategic.
It has been proved several times over that no government can
survive if just five per cent of the population rose up against it. Though it’s
not clear exactly how many Egyptians protested in the February 2011 uprising
that led to President Hosni Mubarak’s downfall, but imagine if every Igbo man
and woman took to the street on a peaceful match demanding for the sovereign
state of Biafra or a fair treatment and development of the eastern region by
the Federal Government of Nigeria. Or have you forgotten the Igbo proverb that
says “when so many people pee on the same spot it will foam”.
One more thing to note is that an uprising becomes about 50
per cent more likely to fail if it turns to violence. It seems to be the case
that once protesters pick up guns, it legitimises the state’s use of
overwhelming violence in response. In other words, security forces are much
more likely to open fire and individual police or soldiers are much more likely
to follow that order if the opposition is shooting at them. That’s a human
reaction, since people don’t like to be shot at, but it also matters for the
government’s internal politics. The more violent the uprising, the more likely
that it will internally unify the regime.
Keep in mind that the state almost always has the military
force at its disposal to crush just about any uprising. An uprising is half as
likely to succeed if the military intervenes directly and that this far less
likely to happen if the uprising remains non-violent.
Using violence also tends to reduce public support for an
uprising. This is simply because a violent uprising is more physically
demanding and dangerous and thus scares off participants and sympathisers. A
violent uprising can end up polarising people in support of the government,
whereas a government crackdown against a non-violent uprising will often reduce
public support for the regime.
Any violent resistance movements, even if they do succeed,
can create a lot of long-term problems. We should learn from some of our
neighbouring countries, that countries with non-violent uprisings are way more
likely to emerge with democratic institutions. They are also less likely to
“relapse” into civil war. After all, a non-violent movement is often inherently
democratic, a sort of expression of mass public opinion outside of the ballot
box. A violent movement, on the other hand, no matter what its driving ideals,
is all about legitimising power through force; it’s not hard to see how its
victorious participants would end up keeping power primarily through violence.
Nwannem biko, thread wisely. Igbo kwenu.
0 comments :
Post a Comment