The Law of Suffering was defined by Mahatma Gandhi as the necessity of the nonviolent actor voluntarily enduring suffering as a mechanism for transforming an opponent. The law rests on Gandhi’s observation that “real suffering bravely borne melts even a heart of stone. Such is the potency of suffering or tapas. And there lies the key Continue Reading Law of Suffering»

Civil Disobedience (CD) is the deliberate, open violation of a law held to be unjust and the willing acceptance of the prescribed punishment. CD can also be referred to as Nonviolent Direct Action when the action taken is considered to be illegal or challenges a law. Civil Resistance is also sometimes used interchangeably with CD by those that see the stated law as being in violation of a more fundamental “higher” law; therefore it is not a matter of “disobedience” against a law but of resistance to an injustice.

Those engaged in CD are not necessarily against the Rule of Law which guides and protects members of the society; rather, they are exercising their responsibility to challenge a specific law with the intention of correcting an injustice when other efforts of “legal” persuasion have failed to achieve the desired results. It follows that the resistance must be “civil” in the sense that it is not disrespectful of any person; as with all nonviolence, this technique can only properly be applied in a just cause.

Gandhi did not learn how to undertake civil disobedience from Thoreau, whose famous essay of 1849 entitled Civil Disobedience presented the concept within the context of American Transcendentalism. However, Gandhi found the terminology developed by Thoreau to be useful in describing nonviolent challenges to unjust laws.

A common example of civil disobedience is the risking of arrest through trespassing, blocking entrances or otherwise stopping the operation of “business as usual.” The School of Americas Watch has been using civil disobedience for over a decade when protestors “cross the line” onto the Ft. Benning US military base, demonstrating their opposition to the military’s instruction of Latin American soldiers in inhumane interrogation techniques.

See also: Law of Suffering.

Mahatma Gandhi defined the Law of Progression during his early years in South Africa. According to Gandhi, nonviolence has a magnetic quality that draws more people to it through its implications for action instead of passivity and appeal to people’s basic compassion and respect for life. In his own words,

My experience has taught me that a law of progression applies to every righteous struggle. But in the case of satyagraha [nonviolent action] the law amounts to an axiom. As the Ganga [sacred river in India] advances, other streams flow into it, … So also as a satyagraha struggle progresses onward, many another element helps to swell its current, and there is a constant growth in the results to which it leads. This is really inevitable, and is bound up with the first principles of satyagraha…. The Ganga does not leave its course in search of tributaries. Even so does the satyagrahi [nonviolent leader] not leave his path which is sharp as the sword’s edge. But as the tributaries spontaneously join the Ganga as it advances, so it is with the river that is satyagraha. (Satyagraha in South Africa, p. 173)

The Law of Progression partly explains why large numbers of participants are not essential in Satyagraha: if a satyagrahi remains true to nonviolence principles, numbers and other kinds of strength will flow into the movement as needed.

Coercion vs Persuasion is a comparison of tactics. It is the description of the means to an end. Ideally, nonviolence works by opening the heart of the opponent, in other words, by persuading them to voluntarily change their belief or action. Coercion on the other hand, employs threat power so that one person feels they have no option but to surrender. Although the process of persuasion may take more time, it is less likely to lead to a cycle of retaliation or revenge down the road. By using persuasive means instead of coercive ones, the positive effects of a nonviolent action are much more durable. When bullied into submission, it is human nature to fight back at the earliest opportunity.

There are times in a nonviolent campaign, however, when it is not realistically possible to persuade because the perpetrator is seemingly unmoved by persuasive appeals. This was the case in the struggle against the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. It is unlikely that he would have ever been persuaded to voluntarily step down from his powerful position. In the end, it was through nonviolent elections that the Chilean people were finally able to oust Pinochet from power and end the junta in Chile in 1988. While General Pinochet eventually took formal responsibility for the many human rights violations under his rule eight years later, it is doubtful that he ever consciously felt remorse for those deeds. Nonetheless, the opposition clearly saved Chileans from much suffering by removing him from power.

The distinction, work vs “work” is necessary to stress that the beneficial results of nonviolent action often lie in the future. “Work” means the immediate and obvious effects, while work without quotes designates the resulting underlying and fundamental shifts brought about by nonviolence; in other words, it means ‘does good work’ not ‘got what we wanted’.  All action has consequences on various levels; a nonviolent actor always takes into account the intended long-term objectives and consequences and not just the more expedient or visible results.  Because nonviolence can take time to address root causes of violence or injustice, people seeking immediate objectives often reject it on the grounds that nonviolence doesn’t “work”. Often they embrace violence because it satisfies an immediate need, while ignoring the long-term adverse consequences, thus lurching from crisis to crisis instead of improving things.

One can characterize the difference as follows:

Violence sometimes “works” but never works; while
nonviolence sometimes “works“ and always works.

A classic example of the difference is provided by the Gandhi-led Salt Satyagraha of 1930. At the cost of much suffering, the campaign produced virtually no change in the hated salt laws — but has been identified by historians as the turning point that lead to the independence of India 17 years later.

Reference: The Search for a Nonviolent Future, Chap. 4