The dilemma of non-violence

Is a non-violent response to war really always possible? Serious debate is needed to find credible ways to peace

It has been written that "the myths will inherit the earth", but observing what has been happening around us since February 24, one should add "as long as the violent do not exterminate them all first and perhaps do not destroy the entire planet".

The question is always the same as how to successfully oppose violence? Does the choice of the non-violent response always work? Or does it instead need an interlocutor at least liberal, if not really democratic? When we look at the undisputed leader of the non-violent resistance, Mahatma Ghandi, it is difficult not to see his action silhouetted, first in South Africa and then especially in India, against the backdrop of a political-institutional environment (the British Empire) and a society ( the British) characterized by the rule of law, political competition, liberal institutions and culture. Of course, like all European colonial empires, London too experienced a systematic twist of principles and norms: they applied differently (and sometimes were expressly different) to white citizens and all other subjects. But despite the congenital racism of the culture of the early twentieth century, the structural distrust of the media of the "metropolitan motherland" (as the colonialist countries were modestly defined with respect to the colonized), the British one was an "open society" characterized by liberal democratic institutions: and this has constituted one of the fundamental reasons for the success of the non-violent action, evidently combined with the value of the militants, who are often willing to pay for their choice with their lives.

A similar situation was that of the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King, who always opposed the brutal violence of the police of the segregationist states of the South with the non-violent choice, also to better highlight the reasons for the myths towards abuse by the violent. The violent were not just the cops, but the institutions and society of the South of the United States. But the message was consciously addressed first of all to the rest of American society and to federal institutions, which eventually intervened to enforce compliance with the Constitution. A victory paid for in blood and the lives of many, including that of Reverend King.

Today, in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, pacifism appears to be in trouble. In part it is due to the mediocre and narcissistic media figures who appropriate him by mystifying him and rendering him a bad service. But these characters, and anyone who shows obvious intellectual dishonesty, is not worth talking about. Partly because, as we often hear, the lexicon and logic of war have obscured the logic and lexicon of peace. Anyone who reads what I write knows that I am not a pacifist, and personally I do not believe in the absolute value of the non-violent reaction to violence. But I have a deep respect for those who believe in it and practice it consistently in every aspect of their life. And I have no difficulty in admitting that in circumstances such as those mentioned at the beginning of this piece, integral pacifism has proved to be the absolute and successful non-violent weapon. But I wonder if it would work in this case. And my answer is no. Unfortunately, I do not believe that there is an alternative to helping, even militarily, the resistance of the Ukrainian people against the Russian invader, because Russian society has no information wells to drink from that have not been poisoned by the regime, because Putin in these over 20 years of stay in power, an ever more absolute power, has built a non-truth and a Newspeak (the special military operation) worthy of the worst Orwellian nightmare.

I remain in an interpretative framework of this resistance of the Ukrainian people which is the same that has always led me to believe that the cause of the deaths of the Fosse Ardeatine was not the attack in via Rasella but the Nazi occupation of Italy, and that the responsibility of those victims lay with the Nazis and not with the partisans. So I think that supplying Ukrainian fighters with weapons means allowing them to fight for their freedom, dying in his name if necessary, but refusing to surrender to the servitude imposed by the invader.

But what matters most to me is to question you, to make you question yourselves and provide your answers, according to your reason and your conscience. This is the most important thing: to nourish informed pluralism of positions, to build a responsible debate even in the face of, indeed above all in the face of, the horror of war. And always take a step back, ourselves with our convictions and our protagonism, in the face of the unspeakable horror of death, the death of others, as a sign of respect for those dead who will never have a life, never again.

With all my heart, I wish there were other viable ways and without any prejudice I hope that from a sincere, honest and responsible debate they will sooner or later emerge. And I see no place, physical and soul, better than Sermig where this can happen.

Today pacifism appears in difficulty: the lexicon and the logic of war have obscured the logic and lexicon of peace. A sincere, honest and responsible confrontation is needed so that new paths may emerge sooner or later

This is the most important thing: to feed informed pluralism of positions, to build a responsible debate even in the face of, indeed above all in the face of, the horror of war

Vittorio Emanuele Parisi

NP Maggio 2022

Vittorio Emanuele Parsi is a professor of International Relations at the Catholic University of Milan. On the left the cover of his latest Titanic publication. Shipwreck or change of course for the liberal order (Il Mulino, 2022)