Use of violent methods of protesting

Use of violent methods of protesting

Authorities enforce rules. The rules enforced might or might not be received by the subjects. In most cases, the oppressive rules are made to benefit the minority who are in power at the expense of the majority. Oppressive rules are rules that are not popular to the subjects. They have a characteristic of letting the majority being used to maximize gain on the part of the few who are in power. As a result, the subjects could find a way of protesting against oppressive rule. The question at hand is whether to use violent or nonviolent methods of protesting. Nonviolent methods are peaceful and intelligently expressed (Hedican 2013, p. 234). They include the use of dialogue and official communication to bring both parties to an understanding. On the other hand, violent methods involve the use of force to get demands. They are associated with destruction of property as well as acute misunderstanding with the authority.

The use of violent methods of eliminating oppressive rule is common in many organizations as well as countries. Violence was used by many nations in the world to acquire independence from their colonizers. It has succeeded in many instances. However, it has adverse effects on subjects as well as the authorities. It has led to loss of life of the subjects, as a result, of the defensive mechanism used by the authority. In addition, the category of methods has led to destruction of property (Tripp 2013, p. 56). As a result, several concerned world organizations are calling for the use of a better method of protesting against oppressive rule. In relation to that, the authorities involved do identify key participants in the events and subject them to punishment. Most authorities or managements are always opposed to protesting of their rules. Some organizations respond to the nonviolent methods while some act best in response to violent methods.

The object in this case is the method of getting rid of oppressive rule. The acceptability of the method is determined by several factors. Some organizations and countries practice dictatorship. In such a situation, the authorities do not use the views of the majority or the public to come up with policies that are accepted. Such authorities would not even allow the subjects to comment on the policies being enforced. In fact, they would even use force to stabilize the situation. Subjects could apply a method of protesting against the oppressive rule in order to call for a rectification for the subject matter (Moore 2008, p. 34). The first option is usually nonviolent method. Otherwise, if that fails, the violent methods come. More so, an organization that comes up with an oppressive rule on the subjects is aware and would not encourage opposition to the matter. As a result, subjects resort to violent methods as they are louder than nonviolent methods. If there were a good relationship between the subjects and the authority, violent methods would be irrelevant.

The main evaluation claim is that the authorities make the oppressive rules intentionally. A stable and democratic organization collects the views of the public and subjects before making a conclusion. They would then analyze the requirements of the majority. The final rule would face minimal opposition from the subjects (Hedican 2013, p. 67). On the other hand, organization and countries that practice dictatorship do not collect the views of their subjects in making policies. As a result, they might come up with rules that are not accepted by the majority. In such cases, the authorities are aware of the oppressive rules that they impose on their subjects. In fact, they use much force in enforcing the oppressive policies. It would be impossible to succeed with nonviolent methods of protesting in dictatorship cases. The most effective method in such cases is violent methods of protesting.

Nonviolent methods are appropriate in situations an understanding exists between the concerned parties. Governments and authorities prefer the methods because they have little impact in expressing the views of the subjects. Otherwise, the methods are only applicable in selected situations. They include dialogue and making official communication between the concerned parties. They are more intelligent approach than more violent methods. The methods do not undermine the relationship between the subjects and the authority. They show a high level of diplomacy among the participants (O’Brien et al. 2009, p. 50). The parties involved sitting in a round table to give their decisions on the subject matter and come up with a solution. If necessary, peaceful protest can be done. The methods maintain a good reputation of the participants. Nonviolent methods do not result to destruction of property. Those are the arguments put across by those for the idea of nonviolent methods.

Violent methods of getting rid of oppressive rules possess some characteristics that enable their function. They are mostly applied in situations where there is no proper relationship between the subjects and the authority. When the relationship has already been undermined, resorting to violence takes the relationship to the same direction but sends a message to the concerned party. The methods are an expression of absolute anger and are extreme. The methods are an appropriate counteraction of that used by the authority to enforce the unpopular rules. The authorities after being aware of lack of popularity of their policies use force tomake the policies work (Scandiffio 2012, p. 145). It is appropriate to use force and violence in order to cause change. Violence leads to massive destruction that shows the emotions of the people in relation to the oppression rule.

The use of violent methods of protesting against oppressive rule is effective as confirmed by successful cases. Colonized nations had to use the means to acquire their independence. The nations engaged in war to fight their enemies of the solution were to give them independence. They even risked their lives such that many people were killed in the process of fighting for freedom (Tripp 2013, p. 321). Peaceful negotiations could not succeed at first as the colonizers were aware of the oppressions that they subjected people. Therefore, they could not allow views of the subjects regarding their system of government. The only way to end those was by violent methods of protesting. The method is widely applied in non-democratic states especially in Africa. Africa still wallows in abject dictatorship whereby the citizens are subjected to oppressive rules. Successful cases have had the practice brought to an end using violence. People have sacrificed their lives to enable their countries achieve freedom.

There is what makes violence an appropriate method in solving the issue at hand. There is a criterion of determining the most effective method. The main purpose of our object is to create change. The most effective method would be that which would create change. In the examples I cited above the subjects had tried to negotiate with the authority. However, the negotiations were in vain (Moore 2008, p. 67). The method that created change was the violent method. The general criterion that qualifies violent methods is its ability to be felt by the authority. A democratic authority does not require much feeling effect to accept change. On the other hand, a non-democratic organization requires intensive feeling of to accept change. The intensive feeling can only be expressed in a better way by violent methods. The qualification of violent methods to protest is their ability to be felt by stubborn authority.

I agree with the fact that nonviolent methods can be applied to eliminate oppressive rules. However, it can only be applied in some situations. Nonviolent methods are applicable to understanding authorities. In this case, the authorities welcome and respect the views of their subjects as well as eternal parties (O’Brien et al. 2009, p. 45). The methods are also applicable in instances where the authorities respond fast to the grievances of the public. Those for nonviolent methods argue that the methods are peaceful and more organized than violent methods. However, some governments and managements do not give their subjects to give their opinions on matters that concern them. It would be impossible to avoid violence in the process of expressing grievances. Nonviolent method does the part of relaying the message to the authority. Nevertheless, certain instances require an intensive expression of ones feeling. The authority further feels it. Most governments ignore nonviolent methods as they only pass the message and do not show the impression.

References

Hedican, J. (2013). Ipperwash: The tragic failure of Canada’s Aboriginal policy. Toronto, U.S: University of Toronto Press.

Moore, J. (2008). Birthed from scorched hearts:Women respond to war. Golden, CL: Fulcrum.

O’Brien, S., & O’Brien, E. (2009).After Gandhi: One hundred years of nonviolent resistance. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.

Scandiffio, L. (2012). People who said no courage against oppression. Toronto, U.S: Annick Press.

Tripp, C. (2013). The power and the people: Paths of resistance in the Middle East. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.