An Unarmed Inserruction

An Unarmed Insurrection

Violence is compulsory to overcome conflicts. This idea is highly stated and many argue in favour of it. However, nowadays, the concept of "non-violent resistance" is being studied systematically and discussed. Mahatma Gandhi helped to spread the nonviolent movement which is revolving at present. This kind of resistance involves the resolution of a big conflict through harmless and creative practices such as boycotts, striking and/or safe protest. In this essay, it will be argued that nonviolent resistance can be more effective than the latest technology of war because it masses the citizenry, which increases their pressure and it makes bargaining easier, which helps to the sooner resolution of a conflict.

On the one hand, nonviolent struggle attracts a large number of diverse participants, which is translated into more pressure being brought and translated into a sooner solution of a conflict . To begin with, people do not congregate in violent movements. For public opinion, violence is regarded as unpleasant and nasty. Although nonviolent resistance is not well-spread, people in general think that wars, for instance, are to be avoided because it has a detrimental effect . Indeed, it triggers deaths, injuries, pain in the victims' family, and so on, so that is the reason why violence has not many adepts. Besides, non-violent struggle allows the citizenry to participate and all together stand up for their rights. As a result, more participants are translated into more pressure which at the same time is translated into a sooner resolution to crises.

Furthermore, nonviolent protest opens the door to bargaining which is more effective in relation to the resolution of a conflict than violence. To begin with, a boycott, as an example of nonviolent resistance, that does not end up in violence it is likely to round off with a meeting in which the parties bargain and try to get a favorable outcome for both. This is so because nonviolent resistance does not threaten the right to life of the parties involved or their well-being. On the other hand, violent events such as repression or wars, spark violent deaths in which no bargaining is allowed. On the contrary, as the right to life is not threatened with non violent struggle, both parties can bargain and express their opinions and arguments and come up with a satisfactory outcome for both parties, which does not happen with wars.

Opponents

...