My brother, kekwanu? I don’t know if it i politically correct to congratulate you on your release from detention. But now that you are out, it is proper to take into consideration that peaceful protest –slow and steady – will always win the race to
create change” in the ways that the Igbo nation is being perceived and treated by the Federal Government of Nigeria.
People have questioned and debated the effectiveness of this
tactics: Is peaceful protest the best way to make your voice
heard? Or is there a time when a smaller violence is the right
response in the face of an even more violent injustice? Are the
tenets of non-violence holding back change that could happen
with a more aggressive fight?
These questions were asked-and acted upon-in the 1960’s
during the height of the civil right movement. They are asked
all around the world every time a protest movement or armed
faction has aimed at toppling a government from its perch.
But only in the last few years have researchers started to
answer these questions by looking at the data. And it turns
out the data says something hopeful. In the face of even the
worst oppression, violence is not the answer. Peaceful
movements are simply more effective.
I want you to consider how much non-violent movements
have shaped societies in the 20th and 21st centuries, from the
fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980s to the Arab Spring and
Gandhi’s movement in 1919 to the coup that killed Murtala
Muhammed in 1966. You will discover that non-violent
campaigns were successful against government repression
more than twice the success rate of their violent counterparts.
Not only that, you will find that the success rate of violent
insurgencies has actually been declining in recent decades,
and that non-violent resistance campaigns have a stronger
tendencies to lead to a democratic government and lasting
peace later on.
You are championing a course at a propitious time that the
nation is basking on the euphoria of a “change” of
government. As the Arab spring democracy movement has
swept through Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the wave of strong
non-violent movement has become the only way, whether it’s
fighting for political rights in Hong Kong, an end to police
brutality in Ferguson in the US, against corruption in Mexico,
or the fall of a dictator in Burkina Faso.
We have never, in history, seen such a mass mobilisation like
we are seeing in the last one or two decades. Imagine what
would happen if this potent people-powered method is applied
to the Biafran campaign. Some of our Igbo brothers are
misunderstanding non-violence as a passive form of
resistance. I have heard some say it is not a powerful tool of
confrontation against oppression and marginalisation. Non-
violence is actually a tool that is more effective because it
attracts a critical mass of participation. Two of the most
celebrated non-violence heroes, Gandhi and Mandela, are
viewed as saints today, even as “they were filling up the
prisons” then. Don’t misunderstand me, non-violent can also
be aggressive, brave, and strategic.
It has been proved several times over that no government can
survive if just five per cent of the population rose up against
it. Though it’s not clear exactly how many Egyptians
protested in the February 2011 uprising that led to President
Hosni Mubarak’s downfall, but imagine if every Igbo man and
woman took to the street on a peaceful match demanding for
the sovereign state of Biafra or a fair treatment and
development of the eastern region by the Federal Government
of Nigeria. Or have you forgotten the Igbo proverb that says
“when so many people pee on the same spot it will foam”.
One more thing to note is that an uprising becomes about 50
per cent more likely to fail if it turns to violence. It seems to
be the case that once protesters pick up guns, it legitimises
the state’s use of overwhelming violence in response. In other
words, security forces are much more likely to open fire and
individual police or soldiers are much more likely to follow
that order if the opposition is shooting at them. That’s a
human reaction, since people don’t like to be shot at, but it
also matters for the government’s internal politics. The more
violent the uprising, the more likely that it will internally unify
the regime.
Keep in mind that the state almost always has the military
force at its disposal to crush just about any uprising. An
uprising is half as likely to succeed if the military intervenes
directly and that this far less likely to happen if the uprising
remains non-violent.
Using violence also tends to reduce public support for an
uprising. This is simply because a violent uprising is more
physically demanding and dangerous and thus scares off
participants and sympathisers. A violent uprising can end up
polarising people in support of the government, whereas a
government crackdown against a non-violent uprising will
often reduce public support for the regime.
Any violent resistance movements, even if they do succeed,
can create a lot of long-term problems. We should learn from
some of our neighbouring countries, that countries with non-
violent uprisings are way more likely to emerge with
democratic institutions. They are also less likely to “relapse”
into civil war. After all, a non-violent movement is often
inherently democratic, a sort of expression of mass public
opinion outside of the ballot box. A violent movement, on the
other hand, no matter what its driving ideals, is all about
legitimising power through force; it’s not hard to see how its
victorious participants would end up keeping power primarily
through violence. Nwannem biko, thread wisely. Igbo kwenu .