On (non)Violence
Feb 17th, 2011 by pedestrian
I was watching this documentary on Al Jazeera’s People & Power about a group of Egyptian activists who have been preparing for nonviolent protest months before the February revolution:
Of course, I couldn’t help but compare their situation to Iran, when actions of this sort would never be possible. (Ahmed would have been imprisoned and tortured for attending the workshops, for “treason and attempting to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran” long before he could put what he learned to use).
But the very interesting methods they employ during protest: they set up first aid centers, they give out food, they prepare eye drops for the tear gas, they hug militias, they have a functional group which stands strong even when one or two of them are taken into custody, etc, etc, … none of this would ever be barely imaginable in Iran or in any place where the state killing machine is leagues more lethal and vicious.
You see, it’s not just the protesters who were nonviolent, the militias stopped attacking during prayer. Fighting, like shopping in a bazaar or a first date, is a social negotiation first and foremost where conflicting worldviews translate to physical maneuvers.
This isn’t to say that outright violence is going to get anyone anywhere. But rather, quite the opposite, in what sort of setting does nonviolence as a strategy even make sense? Does it in the case of Iran?
I can’t help but think of Arundhati Roy’s hunting words in conversation with Avi Lewis.
The Gandhian ethos is a very frightening ethos in the forest.
Avi Lewis is questioning her about her support for the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency, aka “terrorists and India’s greatest internal security threat”. “This is a country that gave us Gandhi” he asks. “Why can’t the Maoists employ nonviolent techniques instead?”
She responds by saying:
The Gandhian ethos is an ethos that requires an audience. And in the forest, there is no audience. In a society that does not belong to the rest of society, how do hungry people go on hunger strike? How do people who have no money not pay their taxes? Or engage in civil disobedience? No one cares. No one is watching. The Gandhian ethos is a very frightening ethos in the forest.
This is certainly not the case in Iran. The opposition groups are certainly not without an audience, or starving in the forest.
But this is a system that is willing to kill, steal bodies, crash funerals, torture, rape and kill children, and not only that actually manipulate a part of its population in going along. In the media and in the mind of this population, it has repeatedly not only slain the opposition when necessary, but erased it from memory, (or, as demonstrated recently, kidnapped its dead, lifeless body to create an entirely new memory all together).
Certainly violence will never be a viable answer, as the moral quandaries aside, they are leagues stronger than the protesters and have all militaristic means to crush them even more violently then they already have. But if your brother was not only killed, but his body, his identity and his soul stolen, would nonviolence even have meaning anymore?
Put another way: does it even make sense?
The Ghandian ethos is not only frightening in the forest … but in the streets of Tehran.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5065566,00.html?maca=per-TWITTER-PERSIAN-2011-xml-mrss
Thanks for this Peace. So sad for him and his wife, Narges. But that’s the thing … so much of what he says doesn’t ring true anymore. Mousavi and Karoubi were never ‘leaders” in the traditional sense, but they did give some sort of direction to the protests. Now they are lost too, no one even knows where they are, so there is no one left but disenfranchised youth, who are very angry. Last year, when they killed, the funerals were raided by militias and the mourning stopped. This year, the militias hijack the funerals, and the identity of the dead. It gets worse and worse. I agree with everything Rahmani says, I’m just not sure it rings of reality on the ground … at least not for everyone.
The light we were seeing at the end of the tunnel, my blog-sister, was the train coming. It is now here. When fascism hits, it is either the world war or the civil war that follows.
Obama spared us the world war, the latter is upon us … I don’t know what miracle will save us, other than Khamenei changing his course; but he too is perhaps run over by the train now … it is all too late …
Someone, please tell me I am wrong and give me reason to believe otherwise.
We tried peace … but war is here … what can we do than defend ourselves?
fascism has hit … but it’s so hard to gauge the feeling on the street from here. I’m sick of saying “my friends”, “my aunt”, “my classmates” … I’m so worried that the outcome will only be a few hundred/thousand dead kids and a smiling fascist throwing their bodies into the sea.
did you see the video?
I did now!
You know what I think? I really think that the ones who can ‘save’ this situation are actually the IRGC and the armed forces. We don’t want the civilians get into the battle ground; but if the official armed services stand up to these goons (and side with the people) we may have a chance.
I think a coup is not a bad thing at this stage; if staged by the right kind of armed forces.
Isn’t IRGC headed by that thug Jafari? (although I haven’t heard anything from him in the past week, have you?) I WISH we had an IRGC that was pragmatic enough to make calculations like you were doing … I’m not so sure though.
I think people need to get their heads around the difference between violence against people and violence against the institutions of the regime.
Eliminate state media — but not the people. Eliminate the headquarters of the Basij, but not the Basij. Target the tools of the regime and remove those tools from the regime. Make contact with military leaders and determine whether or not they will fire on peaceful protesters.
I cannot fathom that people imagine that total nonviolence is necessary. Even in Egypt, where it is widely regarded as non-violent, the police stations were burned down. Protesters fought back to defend themselves when attacked. Near the end the surrounded the state media and when the media started broadcasting truth instead of regime propaganda the end soon followed.
In short, be as peaceful as possible. Target things, not people, and remove the tools used by the regime to control and kill citizens. Peace must be taken — it will not be given in a regime such as that in Iran.
This isn’t the most reliable source, but there have been many rumors circulating:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8331625/Irans-Revolutionary-Guard-pledges-to-hold-fire.html
I hope it’s true but I’m not going to be surprised if it isn’t.
I saw something on peyknet (not my trusted source, but they have some whacky stuff and some of them not false
) that khamenei has gathered all of these dudes together, even hashemi, and has asked for a thorough report; and that Hashemi has given him a report, dismissing Ahmadinejad’s interjections. also, I saw another report that some of the IRGC commanders have written to Jafari asking guarantees that they will not be asked to shoot people down. I really don’t think the armed forces will do this; I am afraid of the “shaban bi mokhs” not IRGC. the IRGC, contrary to common belief is not made up of devout guardians of the Islamic Unpublic of Iran; it’s an umbrella for opportunists. Opportunists change direction with wind.
I think, Khamenei’s trips to “maraje’) but also his silence on these matters (especially about the call of Mousavi and Karoubi to rally on 25 bahman) deserves attention.
“I’m so worried that the outcome will only be a few hundred/thousand dead kids and a smiling fascist throwing their bodies into the sea.”
That is how the Khomeini regime has behaved since 1979.
Hi pedestrian,
The ideas of nonviolent action based on Mahatma Gandhi will not work in an fascistic environment. Gandhi himself was assassinated by an extremist nationalistic activist. This event describes exactly the borders of peaceful action.
Gandhi himself said: If ever happened a righteous war than this one against fascism. It’s not possible to find developed answers in a fight against fascism just only adapting Gandhi’s ideas. The chief reason: This was not the setting where Gandhi had operated.
On the other hand the peaceful and powerful marches of Iranians had convinced the whole world. Maybe it’s time to bring Gandhian ethos together with an effective protection of a democratic movement?
RevoIran, “peace must be taken” … so true.
I agree with you But I don’t think the lines are as clear cut. Remember when a group of protesters tried to attack a basij headquarters in June, and they were shot at (2 people were killed in the gunshots). I think the hardliners know the sites and symbols and power of nonviolence very well, and thus will go to any length to avoid it. Why this insane emphasis on “soft overthrow”, “soft power”, etc etc? They know that such actions have the power to change things, and any change in the status quo will mean a degradation of power for their base.
Shayan, I’d LOVE to believe this, but the source always seems to be the rumors started by Al Arabiya … who got their source from god knows where. I hope it’s true, but I’m not counting on it. As naj said, the ununiformed militias though don’t necessarily mean the IRGC.
I saw that too naj! And I’ve been pondering his silence too. Who are the “shaban bi mokhs” right now? As a mobilized force I mean? Would that be the basij? Sazmaneh Basij? I don’t know anything about the hierarchy of that organization (if it even is one).
gunniy, after the June election, I think there was a general consensus to incorporate nonviolence as a strategy in the protests. I’m not sure if that consensus still stands, or how it’s changed on the ground.
Ped,
Shaban bimokhs, in my view, are the foot soldiers of Ahmadinejad camp on the one hand, and shariatmadari camp on the other, and the Larijani camp on the third. Read the comments of that Fascist Pen Name. Many of these Basijis really do hold such ideas. I think there are principled people who may be opposed to the green camp right now, because they are paranoid and afraid of outside threats.
But, there are others who are on a ‘payroll’ to act as they did in Karoubi’s case. These people are neither ideological nor principled, and guided by nothing other than this “power” that they are given, and protected by the “secrecy” of their dubious pasts, of which the likes of Shariatmadari are aware; but for their pasts to ‘fall out’ the whole IRI becomes discredited.
I am not sure if I am conveying my meaning efectively, but to give and example:
Say I hire a thief to steal from you; but promote him as robin hood! If I admit I have hired the thief, I have shot me in the foot. If the thief admits that he is not robin hood but a thief, he has shot me in the head!
Hi Pedestrian, great post. I’ve linked to it, and to some related items, here:
http://airforceamazons.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-non-violence-and-on-what-is-possible.html
I don’t know if you’ve seen this article, on a related topic: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/16/revolution_u
One passage that struck me as interesting mentioned non-violence as a strategic rather than moral choice –
“Some of the students said they had thought nonviolence meant passivity — morally superior, perhaps, but naive. Popovic framed the task in terms of Sun Tzu: “I want you to see nonviolent conflict as a form of warfare — the only difference is you don’t use arms,” he told them. This was new. He argued that whether nonviolence was moral or not was irrelevant: It was strategically necessary. Violence, of course, is every dictator’s home court. The Otpor founders also knew they could never win wide support with violence — every democracy struggle eventually needs to capture the middle class and at least neutralize the security forces.”