The term ‘‘non-violent struggle’,’ or “non-violent conflict,” as used herein is broadly defined as the exercise of proactive nonaggression in the pursuit of securing rights, seeking redress or agitating against injustice. A recurrent theme in Christian teachings, as well as those of several other world religions, the principle of non-violent struggle was made prominent in recent history through the practice of passive resistance by the venerable Mahatma Gandhi, whose heroic efforts almost unilaterally materialized the sovereign states of present-day India and Pakistan.Perhaps the only successful non-violent conflict in Nigerian history occurred in the 1950s. Coincidentally, it was a fight for independence, and our founding fathers, while they struggled assiduously for this most golden of objectives, contrived just as sedulously to make certain freedom was not bought with needless bloodshed. Today, they are extolled and idolized, their images immortalized on our currency notes and coins, and nationwide our infrastructure is christened with names of these emancipation heroes. But their lessons on the successful conduct of non-violent struggle are long forgotten. Over 3 decades of the jack-booting military has stomped out this memory, or buried underfoot whatever vestige was left.
Those among us who have endeavored to unearth this invaluable precept have through the years met the unyielding wall of military might and persecution. Precious few stand out; Gani Fawehinmi, maverick attorney-at-law; Nosa Igiebor, TELL magazine editor; Wole Soyinka, Nobel laureate and inveterate activist; members of the pro-democracy NADECO conclave. All of these had been assaulted or thrown in jail at one time or the other by the prevailing gulag for voicing their protests at the cruel subjugation and civic injustice they witnessed being meted out by our rulers. Most opted for exile to escape being muzzled indefinitely; so heavy was the hand of the army.
One would have thought, then, that the advent of democracy would evidence the resurgence of the non-violent principle. This, too, has seemed to no avail. So ingrained is the trait of malevolence today, it clothes every facet of the Nigerian society with consummate ease. In contrast to the pacifists, proponents of militant activism abound in their numbers; OPC, MOSSOP, MASSOB or MEND for instance, not to mention the countless gangs of political thugs mobilized for electoral manipulations, coercions and assassinations.
Not every militant activist is a victim of blind bloodlust, however. Logicians like the late Ken Saro Wiwa reasoned that pacifism might as well lie down and die quietly in the face of opposition that thinks nothing of employing extreme armed prejudice. Others have argued that the methods employed by such non-violent activists like Fawehinmi and Igiebor, namely picketing, the power of the pen and the law, are too subdued, at best emasculated; as such, whatever cause is worthy of pursuit requires the more bellicose bark of a gun to be heard.
Their contentions are not entirely without merit: it took the summary execution of the Ogoni 9 for the world to wake up to the outrage that was Abacha’s regime, and the biting cuts in Nigeria’s oil export brought upon by militant vandalism has made the plights suffered by people of the Niger Delta more visible worldwide. The one inexcusable blight to this method is the casualty in scores of innocent lives caught in the crossfire - that, and the sobering fact that, for all the due diligence of these militants through the years, no lasting change has been achieved.
On the other hand, there are daily reports of political underhandedness being reversed in the law courts, and organized protests launched against improprieties by state officers via newspaper articles and other written means are gradually gaining the attention of the relevant authorities such as the EFCC and the Federal legislature. Falsely appointed representatives are unseated by the lorry-load, and newspaper headlines these days never get enough of corrupt officials being incarcerated, or of heated deliberations at the Upper and Lower Houses concerning controversially sponsored bills.
In closure, the nation’s progress to adopting the skills of non-violent struggle is uncharacteristically slow, particularly due to the deeply rooted culture of malevolence and a general ignorance of pacifist skills. It is certain that without greater awareness its efficacy will founder. But history, both past and present, repeatedly gives credence to the plausibility of success through non-violent struggle in comparison to militarism. No one needs a drawing to discern the better path or choose it. The question remains how many will.
