Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in a 1968 speech that it would be “morally irresponsible”
to reprimand riots “without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable
conditions that exist in our society.” Mahatma Gandhi said “It is better to be violent, if
there is violence in our hearts than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover
impotence”. Interestingly enough, Dr. King and Gandhi both won over their respective
revolutions through non-violent means as opposed to violent protests and taking up of
arms. Also, even more captivating is the history that the two parallels have shown
throughout history and the shifts in history that both violent and non-violent forms of
protest have helped foment. The question begs which one has more sustainable results and
why. According to data, study, and analysis, it can be easily proven that non-violent forms
of protest trump violent forms of protest significantly for three main reasons; mass
participation, regime defections, and ability to employ flexible tactics maneuvering
strategically around what the power in play can throw at them.
The most powerful factor in a form of resistance and protest is the ability to organize a
large movement of like-minded goals. When fighting for regime change, there are many
obstacles if your fight is to institute and armed resistance. There is procurement of arms,
lack of training, strong family ties that offer leverage for the regime in power, the fear of
greater chance of death, just to name a few. All these obstacles and fears make any family
man or woman hesitant to take up arms. Resistance fighters during World War 2 mainly
consisted of youths fighting a titan totalitarian that was ruthless and out-powered
resistance on every level. Evidence has shown that armed resistance has rarely trumped the
status quo and when they have it took the alliance of foreign powers that were hesitant and
apprehensive of lending aid. Casualties during armed resistances are staggeringly high
when compared to peaceful protests. The Philippines’ People Power movement of the 80’s
is a prime example as to the limitless bounds a nonviolent protest can have. The campaigns
of nonviolence were tactical and diverse, hitting the oppressive military force that ruled the
Philippines in those times by incorporating women, religious figures, civil servants and
professionals. Before the incorporation of nonviolent methods, the violent efforts of rebel
youth were met with cold and mortal defeat. When you have a large group of collective
