The Violence Dilemma

RHODESIA FELL only after bloody struggle, and today the world and freedom fighters must appraise the future of the remaining subjugated nations in southern Africa. Moralists, who fear armed struggle but who know change must come, promote their panacea, passive resistance. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. each used this weapon of peace to successfully obtain relief from two of the world's strongest nations, and their disciples believe it will work anywhere.

Kenneth Kaunda, the president of the Republic of Zambia, once held steadfastly to this belief; in fact, he helped free his colony from the English yoke through non-violent means in the '50s and '60s. A devout Christian--his father was a preacher--committed to non-violence, but also a leader of his people and sworn to ameliorate their welfare, he did not know how he should lead. Thus he found "satyagrah," the creative use of non-violent resistance as a strategy for change, "a life belt thrust into the hand of a drowning men." It worked in Zambia, but his confidence in this strategy waned after he became the nation's first and only president and had to confront another freedom struggle in the country next door--Rhodesia.

Before deciding whether to support Black guerrillas, he examined passive resistance to determine its motive forces and utility in Rhodesia. And in The Riddle of Violence, he presents his conclusions: Rhodesia lacked the elements to make a non-violent struggle feasible. He points out what single-minded moralists overlook: nonviolence, by itself, can be a total failure. For in Nazi Germany, the Jews died, regardless of passiveor active resistance. Use of this example led Kaunda to conclude that one element necessary for a successful non-violent struggle: some morality in the ruling establishment. If the oppressors will kill anyone who opposes them regardless of the moral implications, then non-violent protest will only eliminate the protesters, not the injustice.

Ironically, the other necessary factor in a passive resistance movement, Kaunda concludes, is a violent faction. The oppressors, even if they are moral, can often ignore the quiet distrubances of the non-violent protestors. But when, as happened in the United States in the '60s, other demonstrators, like the Black Panthers, advocate change by violent means, then the oppressors must choose between the less painful of the two choices to placate the oppressed. The fear factor forces the issue, and morality contrainsts lead to a peaceful solution.

Kaunda believes that Rhodesia lacked enough virtue to allow a passive resistance struggle. White Rhodesians did not care how the world viewed them and hence did not worry about the international implications of their actions. Just as South Africa has uncaringly killed protesting schoolchildren, the Rhodesians would have destroyed any passive resistance movement. Nevertheless, the Rhodesians understood fear, and Kaunda realized that only violence could alter the unacceptable social structure. So even though he deplored violence, he supported "armed struggle in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) because I could no longer believe that anything is preferable to the use of force."

THE RIDDLE OF VIOLENCE cogently presents the passive-resistance-versus-violence argument with Kaunda drawing on his long political and academic experience. This former teacher of philosphy and ethics uses clear analogies and many applicable examples to embellish and strenghthen his reasoning. Moreover, the writings of a 57-year-old leader, who is already a two-time founding father (in 1964 in Zambia and in 1980 in Zimbabwe) would be interesting in and of themselves, and the collection of his thoughts into relevant political philosophy makes the book even more worthwhile. As a unit, however, the book suffers from its essay form and consequently lacks adequate continuity from beginning to end. Nevertheless, the patchwork arrangement detracts little from the ideas of the book--for Kaunda's ideas will undoubtedly serve as a valuable document for many liberation struggles to come.

The answer to The Riddle of Violence shows that violence can be superior to non-violence because force can stop suffering, while inaction or non-violence may allow it to continue. The Rhodesian climate--social, economic and ethical--obviated passive resistance as a successful method to end the subjugation of its Blacks; to abolish the inequity, violence was necessary. Now, Kauna warns, South African whites must decide by which measure they wish to succumb. For as this leader has now proven twice in his lifetime, the advocates of minority rule in Black Africa will inevitably face a day of reckoning