.png)
Rebecca SE Tan
18 November 2022
In political theory class, we discussed whether violence is ever legitimate in specific situations, centred upon Fanon's versus Gandhi's ideas. I loved the discussion, perhaps because I am also grappling with the same question in my terrorism class. To give a brief description of their ideas –
For Fanon, he believes that anti-colonial violence is legitimate in the context of the violence of colonisation (Nayar, 2013). This is because colonial violence is dehumanising against the body, psyche, and culture of the colonised. [You can see here that Fanon does not only see violence as physical.] Hence, anti-colonial violence is necessary in the case where one is excluded from the political process as it allows them to re-establish their sense of self and create a new social order (Nayar, 2013). [Think, for example, of the South African apartheid.]
Gandhi, on the other hand, begins with the same starting point, but draws completely different conclusions. While he agrees on the illegitimacy of state violence and the importance of a sense of self, he concludes that the response should be non-violent resistance instead – to “place man at the centre” and “help him recover and develop his moral and social powers currently surrendered to the state” (Parekh, 1989). Violent resistance, to Gandhi, is just as illegitimate as the state’s.
Regardless of which you agree with, my question is whether legitimacy should only be derived from the means. Both Gandhi and Fanon’s argument on the legitimacy of violent resistance is regardless of the outcome. Meaning that, if say a violent resistance does not practically work out (fuels more state violence, poor public perception etc), it can still be legitimate (normative argument) for Fanon[1]. Whereas for Gandhi, even in the case of a practical success (overthrowing an oppressive government, establishing a good government etc), it is still illegitimate to use violence as the means (a different normative argument).
Yet, is there a space for legitimacy to be based upon the ends? I’m thinking, for example, of Locke’s roles of the state - securing life, liberty, and property. If the state fails in these aspects, can the outcome itself (establishing a new authority which can secure these things) legitimise its means? For Locke himself, whose work centres a lot on consent, he may still not agree on this. But what about someone like Machiavelli, who famously said that “it is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both”? He goes on in “The Prince” to discuss how those with the best intentions may still end up creating bad policies and end in disastrous outcomes.[2]
What do you think about this? Are there situations in which you believe the use of violence is legitimate? Should the legitimacy of violence be drawn on the means or its ends? Is there a false dichotomy between the two? Let me know in the comments below!
[1] Think, for example, of the Just Stop Oil movement. Even though it has been practically disastrous (in my opinion), with its outcome painting a worse light on environmental activism, could it be argued that it was still a legitimate act of violence (against culture)? Here, it is not about whether their actions have helped the environmental scene, but rather if their actions could be justified in the first place.
[2] Which is why, I guess, people may not always be keen to vote in human rights activists or environmentalists as politicians. They surely have the best of hearts but not all of them are necessarily equipped for policy decision-making.
Edit: On a (barely) related note, just thought I'd include this podcast by Prof. Walid with climate activists Terese Teoh & Kate Yeo, who are at the COP27. (Watch it here on Instagram or Youtube.) A refreshing discussion into the deeper topics behind climate activism, such as the role of individual action, climate justice, economic pragmatism, idealism and the dynamic spectrum of activism. In one part, they discussed the Just Stop Oil movement (33:08 onwards), where I also nudged them about the violence against culture point (37:36 onwards). Huge respect to these activists, who are so open-minded to consider different perspectives!