|
آرشيو مقالات و مطالب درزمينه نافرماني
هاي مدني
Non-violence and Democratic Governance
by Ramin Jahanbegloo
The past half –century has witnessed an unprecedented flowering of
nonviolent experiences around the globe. In many areas of the world, such as
Latin America and Asia, where armed struggle was once seen as the only path
to freedom, nonviolent campaigns are now considered as institutionalized
methods of struggle for democratic invention and democratic governance. One
of the important tasks that the nonviolent movements have set for themselves
is the successful provision of “good governance�. For them the real test
of democracy is not only in the peaceful process of transition but in
nonviolent consolidation of democratic institutions. For the advocates of
nonviolence around the world, democracy is not just an “institutional
arrangement for organizing the political society� but also a new attitude
and approach towards the problem of power. Following examples of Buddha,
Jesus, Ashoka, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., the challenges
and difficulties of democratic governance need to be confronted through
self-rule, self-control and the soul force. For all these thinkers of
nonviolence, the twin practices of self-discipline and empathetic service
are necessary to control an unjust and inappropriate power. Gandhi
considered “democracy disciplined and enlightened as the finest thing in
the world�. What he meant was that democratic governance is not a
power-over the society, but a power- within it. In other words, if democracy
equals self-rule and self-control of the society, empowerment of the civil
society and collective ability to rule democratically are the essential
constituents of democratic governance. Democracy and nonviolence, therefore,
are inseparable. Where democracy is practiced, people are honored for what
they are. This requires transformation of human relations until none are
violated because all participate in the democratic power. To have power in a
democracy means to take part in the decision-making that affects each
one’s fate. It means self-institution and self-rule.
For many thinkers and practitioners of nonviolence the significance of
nonviolence lies principally in a commitment that involves self-rule and
self-discipline. Such a commitment must include a profound concern for the
Truth and welfare of all in the society. Centuries before Mahatma Gandhi
spoke about “Swaraj� as self-rule and “Satyagraha� as struggle for
Truth, Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism had adopted the doctrine of non-harm
in South Asia. The term “nonviolence� is itself a modern translation of
the Sanskrit word “ahimsa�, that Gandhi drew from the ancient texts of
Hinduism. It comes from the root “hims�, a desiderative for the verb
“han�, to harm or injure. Prefixed with a privative “a�, it is
translated literally as the “absence of the desire to injure�. I the
Upanishads, in the Yoga Sutra and in the Baghavad Gita, ahimsa is considered
as “the highest duty� adhered to anyone seeking perfection. A careful
reading of the Baghavad Gita, which is the middle section of a great epic,
Mahabharata , reveals that ahimsa is acknowledged as created by Krishna and
attributed as a characteristic of those who are born “to the divine
lot�. The teachings of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita explicitly renounce
harm and injury. In this way they became the inspiration for a life
committed to nonviolence and self-rule.
The centrality of ahimsa is also paramount in the tradition of Jaina that
was founded around 800 B.C. by Parsva in South Asia and reformed two hundred
years later by Mahavira. Although Jainism remained a minority movement, its
philosophical influence upon the wider life in the Indian sub-continent has
been beyond all proportion. When one looks at Gandhi’s life, one has to
recognize that he was brought up in a religious atmosphere deeply influenced
by Jainism. In Jainsim, ahimsa is practiced as a vow in order to overcome
the negative influence of karma. This means that acts of violence are
avoided because they will result in an obstruction to a state of liberation
at some future time. According to Acaranga Sutra one of the basic texts of
Jaina philosophy, “injurious activities inspired by self-interest lead to
evil and darkness�. This has lead the Jain community to consider
nonviolence as a foundation for all its social activities. Gandhi’s
attitude toward Jainism can perhaps be treated in relation with the fact
that for him as for the Jains Truth includes nonviolence and nonviolence is
the necessary and indispensable means for the discovery of Truth.
The other movement of thought and religious and social practice that
deeply influenced Gandhi and is considered today as a specific Asian
solution to the problems of democratic governance is Buddhism. Breaking away
from ritualism of the Vedic religion Gautama Buddha gave the world a great
example of personal commitment to the nonviolent way of organizing the
social life. Buddhist teachings place a considerable emphasis upon the
precept of “non-injury� and by his they have made their own contribution
to the philosophy of nonviolence. Among the ideals that Buddhist monks were
expected to exemplify, “nonviolence� appears as a principal value.
Buddhist philosophy begins in the self and moves from there to affect the
other. For Buddhism, the other will be served if the self is transformed. To
experience “nonviolence� in Buddhism is to be aware of this
interconnectedness of life. Therefore, in Buddhism the solution to violence
is rather individual rather than social. When nonviolence is defended in
Buddhist terms, it is strongly based on the idea of “suffering of the
self�. Violence, therefore, is forbidden not only because it harms the
other, but because it primarily harms the self.
Ashoka, grandson of Chandragupta-the founder of the Mauryan dynasty-who
came to the throne in 268 B.C., was one of the royal patrons of Buddhism.
The British historian H.G. Wells has written : “Amidst the tens of
thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history…the name
of Ashoka shines, and shines almost alone, a star.� The legend of this
ruler is the story of a cruel and ruthless king who converted to Buddhism
and thereafter established a reign of virtue. In his efforts to propagate
Buddhism, Ashoka built shrines and monasteries and inscribed Buddhist
teachings on rocks and pillars in many places. He also promoted tolerance
towards all religions that he supported financially. He recommended that all
religions desist from self-praise and condemnation of others. Ashoka
comprehended that the true governance cannot be done buy using force, but
can be done by using dharma. Dharma meant for Ashoka morality, active social
concern, religious tolerance, ecological awareness, observance of ethical
precepts and good governance. If we agree with the Indian poet Tagore who
described Dharma as “civilization� and Gandhi who defined
“civilization� as a “virtuous action�, we can say that Ashoka’s
social and political revolution changed violent governance to a politics of
humanism based upon Dharma. Ashoka started his experience of nonviolent
governance with a new philosophy and a new vision. His cry of nonviolence
echoed centuries in the work and action of Mahatma Gandhi.
Gandhi showed the world that the most revolutionary idea of the human
history is the truth of nonviolence. As Gandhi asserted the idea is “as
old as the hills�, going back to Mahavira, Buddha and Christ, developed by
Leo Tolstoy and nonviolent practitioners of many lands. But it was
Gandhi’s experiment with Truth in the first half of the 20th century that
proved that nonviolence could be used on a large scale to redirect towards
democratic governance. For Gandhi, nonviolence entailed more than a
renunciation of bombs and bullets; it was above all concerned with the idea
of democracy as “Swaraj� or self-rule. Long before he emerged as leader
of the nonviolent movement in India and was hailed as the Mahatma, Gandhi
had embraced the idea of “Swaraj� in the later phase of his South
African period. For Gandhi, the goal of “Swaraj� could not be obtained
by simply replacing British domination with Indian domination; the problem
was much deeper and more complex, involving a change in the very meaning and
character of governance. Evidence for this can be found in many of
Gandhi’s writings-including what he wrote in his journal Harijan in
February 1946 where we read: “A nonviolent evolution is not a program of
seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships ending
in a peaceful transfer of power�. In other words, for Gandhi, the
liberation of India from alien rule was merely the first step towards a
radical reconstruction of the social and political order in India and
ultimately in all countries. As far as India concerned, this involved a
radically decentralized and non-pyramidical society in which each individual
would be at the center of an “oceanic circle�. As we can see, democratic
decentralization is crucial to Gandhi’s concept of nonviolent society. He
portrayed his preferred political system as a Panchayat Raj or a republic of
villages. Gandhi’s political philosophy is therefore one that presupposes
a democratic governance. He has a theory which combines a radically
individualistic view of man with a communitarian view of the society.
According to Gandhi, a decentralized decision-making ensures the well-being
of all those who are affected by such decisions. The rationale of Gandhi’s
premise is derived from the democratic imperative that all those whose
interests are affected by decisions ought to take part in the governance
process. In other words, the spontaneous redistribution of power in the
country naturally results in a vigorous drive towards autonomy in the
villages and small political units. That is why, in his view, the freedom of
the individual had to be the hallmark of an independent country. Gandhi
maintained a proper balance between “Nonviolent resistance� and
“constructive work�. Gandhi’s “Constructive Program� requires a
collective capacity for building and maintaining a strong civil society.
Strengthening civil society is a way to attain what Gandhi called “Poorna
Swaraj� or complete independence by truthful and nonviolent means. This is
to say that the promotion and consolidation of democratic governance and
economic freedom are for Gandhi as two sides of the same coin.
What Gandhi and other Asian theorists and practitioners of nonviolence
teach us is that sustaining and consolidating democratic governance and
building a pluralist civil society is always a work-in-progress requiring
constant attention and responsibility. As another famous Asian practitioner
of nonviolence, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, once said: “While it is true
that no system of government is perfect, democracy is the closest to our
essential human nature and allows us the greatest opportunity to cultivate a
sense of universal responsibility.� The process of democratic transition
has not yet come to an end in the global century. We also have a long way to
go in facing the challenges of consolidating and sustaining democracy around
the world, and especially in Muslim countries.
The terrorist attack of September 11, while directed towards the United
States, was also an attack on all Muslim nations that are committed to
tolerance, pluralism and democracy. Today the true challenge for the Muslim
community against the religious obscurantism is to help advance the agenda
of democratic change and modernization inside the Islamic world. This
challenge can provide an opportunity for a broad spectrum of Muslim social
activists and scholars to join together in a penetrating exploration of
nonviolent alternatives to global violence in the present era. What is
needed to practice nonviolence in a Muslim society? For Gandhi, “belief in
nonviolence is based on the assumption that human nature I its essence is
one and therefore unfailingly responds to the advances of love…The
nonviolent technique does not depend for its success on the goodwill of the
dictators, for a nonviolent resister depends on the unfailing assistance of
God which sustains him throughout difficulties which could otherwise be
considered insurmountable�. A Muslim following Gandhi’s teaching would
not feel estranged. In fact, it may be possible to trace the Islamic
influence of Gandhi’s religious thought concerning the omnipotent and
incomparable God. But the proximity between Islam and nonviolence can be
illustrated with the figure of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who was referred to
by Gandhi as Badshah Khan. When the history of the subcontinent is being
written, perhaps only a very few of those who occupy public attention will
find a mention in it. But among those very few “there will be the
outstanding and commanding figure of Badshah Khan� said Jawaharlal Nehru.
He was a Muslim who tried to light the lamp of nonviolence in the hearts of
young Pathans. He was a person who spent half of his life behind the bars
and still preached the message of nonviolence to his people. He saw no
conflict in his triple identities- his Pathaniat, Hindustaniat and Insaniat
(humanity) was an organic whole. Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s profound belief in
the truth and effectiveness of nonviolence came from the depths of personal
experience of his Muslim faith. “In my inmost conviction,� Ghaffar Khan
said, “that Islam is amal, yaqin, muhabat�-selfless service, faith, and
love. Devout Muslim and a devoted ally of Mahtma Gandhi, Ghafar Khan
struggled for the rights of his people for almost eighty years without ever
yielding a weapon. His example proved that the highest religious values of
Islam could be deeply compatible with a nonviolence that has the power to
resolve social and political conflicts even against heavy odds. He was a
Muslim voice for toleration and democracy. He was revered by Gandhi, who
viewed him and his Pathan followers as an illustration of the courage it
takes to live a nonviolent life. In 1929 Ghaffar Khan organized the
“Khudai Khidmatgar� to effect political, social and economic reforms
based on Islam. Its adoption of nonviolence was more thorough than that of
the Indian National Congress in as much as the members of the “Khudai
Khidmatgar� pledged themselves to nonviolence not only as a policy, but as
a way of life.The ideal of the “Khudai Khidmatgar� was to become true
servants of God and to realize he leasure of God through serving humanity.
The “Khudai Khitmadmatgar� was able to carry a nonviolent program to the
extent of establishing a parallel government for a short period in Peshawar.
“There is nothing surprising in a Muslim or a Pathan like me subscribing
to the creed of nonviolence,� said Ghaffar Khan, “It is not a new creed.
It was followed fourteen hundred years ago by the Prophet all the time he
was in Mecca�. If Ghaffar Khan’s example has a certain relevance for the
Muslim societies, it is because he shows that nonviolence in Islam is
grounded in the society at the grass-roots level through the action of each
individual. It is integrated into the personal activities of individuals and
into the collective behavior of an Islamic society. This support for
nonviolence presented by a Muslim freedom fighter shows us clearly that
democracy is not an alien principle or an unattainable ideal for Islamic
societies. Unfortunately, too much of the discussion of the current
“wave� of democratization in Muslim countries focuses almost solely on
the presumed democratizing potential of market mechanisms. Democratic
transition in Muslim societies, however, requires much more than market
mechanisms. To achieve a consolidated democratic governance, the necessary
degree of autonomy of civil society must be embedded in the rule of law. A
nonviolent civil society, with the capacity to generate and articulate ideas
and values and to create associations and solidarities among the citizens,
can help start a democratic transition and help consolidate and deepen
democracy. Democratic governance requires that habituation to the norms and
procedures of democratic conflict-regulation be developed. A high degree of
nonviolent practice is a key part of such a process. The force of the claim
that democracy is a universal value for all kinds of societies and cultures,
lies ultimately in its constructive function in the consolidation of value
and practice of nonviolence. This is where the debate of democratic
governance belongs. It cannot be disposed of by assumed cultural taboos
imposed upon us by our various pasts which are generators of violence and
hatred in our contemporary societies.
In this context, the legacy and tradition of nonviolence in South Asia is
not only an important milestone in its own history, but an important
milestone in the history of democracy. What Gandhi and Abdul Ghaffar Khan
achieved in South Asia and what South Asian experience of nonviolence
continues to represent is relevant and important to the rest of the Muslim
and non-Muslim world in order to achieve a nonviolent democracy
|
