Freedom

Liberating The Oppressor As Well As The Oppressed

“Friends, Comrades and fellow-South Africans, I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all. I stand here before you not as a prophet, but as a humble servant of you the people. Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today - I therefore place the remaining years of my life in your hands”.

- 11 February, 1990

Source: South African History Archive

I’ve just finished reading Nelson Mandela’s autobiography: “The Long Walk to Freedom.”, and it’s been one of the most incredible reads of my life. What a fascinating life Mandela has had, and what sacrifices and pains he went through for the freedom of his people.

As a child, I was always inspired by the likes of household names such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi in their fight against racism, imperialism, and colonialism - and how they managed to go about this through preaching non-violence. I’ve always considered myself a pacifist - and often considered that if I ever “had to fight for freedom” I’d do it through non-violence and non-violent protest. Through art, music, and culture. Gramsci talked about fighting hegemony on the cultural front. It always made sense to me - and it’s how I’ve tried to live my life - being an activist through music, in particular. There have indeed been instances where I have “fought” for certain freedoms - some won, some still being fought for. (The first song I ever wrote and published was also called “Fight for Yourself”.)

Anyway, after reading this book, I was revisited by an age old-debate: Is it justified to move away from non-violence if it is not leading to any real conclusion? To quote Mandela, it is often “the oppressor [that] defines the nature of the struggle.” - so if the oppressor chooses violence, what’s the answer?

Before we get into that, a small trip down memory lane: I am transported back to when I witnessed first-hand the riots that blew up in London back in 2011. I was on a balcony at a friends house (well, an open air corridor of some old housing estate flats that have been privatised). We saw smoke bellowing from various locations across the city. We then saw several people break into an ASDA store below (we were near Elephant and Castle) stealing truck-loads of items. The 2-3 person police force had only arrived about an hour later; by then most of the looters had escaped. The 5-day riots had begun over the killing of a local black man, Mark Duggan by the police.

In the moment, I recalled Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote: “A riot is the voice of the unheard.” as we debated with friends as to what was “right or wrong” in such an instance. Essentially, were riots justified if governments turned a blind eye (and ear) to underlying societal issues? To what some call, “structural violence”. Was it ok to “fight fire with fire?”

This lead to further questions.

Was it ok that a local store had been sacked - we agreed, that no it wasn’t. Was it ok that innocent people were being harmed - again, no. We agreed. Yet, there were opposing views on the theoretical discussion of whether or not violence was ever justified in the fight for freedom. “Violence is never the answer”, “violence is justified as a form of self-defence”, “violence is just an expression when all other expressions have failed or have gone unheard…”

The answer, I believe, is complicated. The reality of riots tend to be found in another root cause somewhere (and sadly, as stated - there was no research to uncover the root causes of why for the aforementioned riots: “There was no government inquiry into the causes and consequences of the riots.”).

Also, why does a kid want to steal Nike shoes in the first place? (Probably because its a luxury item he could never afford and he sees it an all his favourite sports heros and musicians). The focus therefore in this situation, in my humble opinion, should not be on “That child is a thief.” It should be on, in my opinion, the question of “why have we created an economic and social system based on status - where a child feels so lacking, and therefore decides to loot an expensive pair of shoes when the opportunity arises?”

Anyway, I digress. The point is, reading Mandela’s autobiography, I can see that at some point, after the African National Congress (ANC) spent decades preaching non-violence (either from a moral or tactical standpoint), and it not leading anywhere, they decided at one stage that they had to change tactic and turned to using sabotage (at first) and then eventually considered (and eventually ended up using) physical force through the formation of the underground paramilitary wing of the ANC, uMkhonto weSizwe, that came about in the wake of the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960.

This got me thinking. When (if ever) is it ok to ”fight back?” Where do we draw the line? Malcolm X once said: “I don't advocate violence; but if a man steps on my toes, I'll step on his.” Yet Gandhi famously argued: “An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind.”

All things considered, nature is violent (even trees fight against light), animals are violent (in reproduction and in pursuit of pray), and sadly, humans are the most violent; whereas the plant and animal kingdom balances itself as an ecosystem of shifting energy, humans are indeed an “egosystem” sucking up energy for their own selfish needs.

Going back to Mandela’s quote:

“The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle.”

This means that the form of resistance is often a reaction to the form of oppression. And sadly, the main oppressor still shows up as the root of violence (whether outright or structural). I think, leaving the discussion of whether or not violence is justified at all (because this is a long debate that cannot fit into a few hundred words in a blogpost), what stood out to me the most was one of the final comments that Mandela made:

“I knew as well as I knew anything that the oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed. A man who takes away another man's freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else's freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.”

So, as we focus on liberation movements across the globe - let us also focus on the liberation of the oppressor. For, “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”

And in an ideal world, if we create more space for working with each other’s enemy as early as possible, I believe - violence can (and should!) be avoided. This is why we need spaces for debating those who hold opposing views - no matter how difficult, it is those people we need to win over, not the ones within our own bubble who agree with us anyway.