Bringing Nonviolence Into Political Actions: How do we relate to the state?

I received two 'requests' in the mail today: a request to consider serving as
an election staff member in the precinct where I reside in some coming
election, and an order to report, on pain of possible fine or imprisonment if
not excused, to serve as a juror in the US District Court.  Opportunities to
develop once more my relationship to 'the state', and an occasion for sharing
some thoughts with the nonviolence community.

Among peace and/or nonviolence people there's quite a range of thought and
practice relating to government and political affairs.  Even among those of
us who take the step of refusing to pay for war there are differences on this
subject.  I have the impression that most of us vote. Many hope to use
government action as a help to peace, and for example ask governments to use
their powers to keep others, besieged Bosnians for example, from obtaining
weapons, or try to get governments to embargo one or more "sides" in a
conflict, using force to prevent trade with Iraq, Haiti, Nicaragua, or pass
and enforce laws "controlling" guns or the trade in them.

I tend towards Thoreau's observation that "government never of itself
furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its
way," and favour both for principle and for practical effect that the main
thing we need from government, if anything, is the reduction of government
violence, and that we proceed self-reliantly with nonviolent efforts for
constructive change and to reduce dangers.  Such reduction in government
violence would reduce the great violence of wars, and contribute to social
and environmental progress.

Particularly in combination with active nonviolent social struggle, a
reduction in state violence would tend to equalize wealth.  For consider:
with no governmental force to guarantee "ownership" and concentration of
wealth and power, things would tend to 'even out', or at least with no
government support the repression would have to be paid for by those trying
to make the profits, and the repression would be without the charm of social
approval that helps so many even from among the poor talk about supporting
"our" interest by supporting government actions around the world!

I find it difficult and puzzling that many seem not to notice state violence,
or that they consider it of such minor meaning that they endorse it without
detecting a problem for nonviolent politics.  Is it that hoping to use that
force to the advantage of their ideas, they choose not to define it as
problematic?  Is it that our civic conditioning gives us a soft spot for the
state and its force?   Or is it too much to face the world without believing
we have a powerful parent like the state to rely on?

The issue is not 'merely' philosophical (though it's worth getting straight
even if it were 'merely' that).  When we leave something significant (like
government violence) out of our analyses, our action choices will reflect
that distortion, and we will lose the positive effect we seek, and may even
act against our claimed objectives.  Look for example, at the revolutions
which to the puzzlement of supporters revolved back to old oppressions, or
the 'anti-crime' measures which actually cause further social destruction and
more crime.

The story of actions intended to relieve problems making things worse is
unfortunately a common one, more common than realized.

A recent march and rally in Los Angeles to "Stop The Violence Now" was
intended "to Show that Violence is Unacceptable in our Community", and a call
to "STOP the Drive-by Shootings, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assaults, Gun
Violence, Child Abuse, Elder Abuse..."  Goals about as worthy as goals can
be.  I made the easy guess that it would not deal with the examples of
violence set by empire and exploitation, the violence of the "normal"
operation of the state with its guns and troops and courts and prisons, and
not deal well with the role of social inequality and the concentration of
wealth.

The campaigners, I guessed, would be likely to call for various community
actions, and for the force of the state to help their program.  And why not? 
We need all the help we can get, and the conventionally conditioned citizenry
isn't likely to notice that calling on state violence in an anti-violence
campaign is conceding something essential.  And more important, it means
forgoing reliance on and practice and use of the most powerful weapon of all,
the one that heroes/heroines of nonviolence have used many times and with a
"success" rate greater than that of violence (though neither comes with a
guarantee, I should note). The nonviolent weapons are the tools which combine
love and determination, empathy for self and empathy for other - the spirit
and practice of nonviolence.

If the demonstrators fail to acknowledge the violence of the state, they will
likely also miss its major role in protecting the economic order with its
cruel inequalities; they will limit their critique to the "excessive" while
missing the systemic.  And the efforts may at most move the violence around,
while making the basic causes worse.

This campaign I'm on is hard going at times - but how easy is it supposed to
be to get across such a different perspective?  I myself also need challenge
no less than those with whom I disagree.  Getting my nonviolent politics
understood - while discussing the subject in a way consistent with the
nonviolence - provides me opportunity to improve my own attitude.

When I told someone that I don't favour the gun control legislation her
organization proposes because it's a promotion of violence and guns to
endorse the violence and guns of the state to use them to take away guns from
others, she said that people in her neighbourhood needed something done.  Her
implication seemed to be that her way could "work" and mine offered nothing
practical.

There was so much to say; neither of us had time for any of it.  I might have
said that violence may move the suffering around but only nonviolence could
reduce it, that the state is the violent guarantor of the system which
impoverishes the people of her neighbourhood.

Or maybe it was something more personal I wanted to say, what it was like
reading my indictment "The United States of American vs. Joseph Israel
Maizlish", or my years in prison and what I learned about different kinds of
power, about the sources of hope, about the role of state violence.

But more than explaining myself, what I needed was actual projects to point
to, nonviolent protection of people and neighbourhoods. This is the challenge
I am left with.

A parallel issue is my non-voting.  This issue is so nearly sure to
scandalize associates that, well, it's another opportunity to practice
articulating things simply, to talk about the uselessness of win-lose
"non-resolution" of problems, to show a positive attitude, and to remind
myself and the other person about the underlying goals we share, and the
tactics of constructive struggle which we may both support.

When a friend expressed her excitement about the South African elections, I
shared in that excitement as best I could.  Yet as I celebrate the change in
South Africa, I note that it's that same power pattern of seeing who will
"rule over" whom, with some interests fearing being left out or overpowered
(though I should note that the proportional system is a positive
modification).

But where the polarization is great enough, and the stakes viewed as high
enough, voting gives way to violence, in the electoral process and/or in
rejection of its results, as we see in Burma, Haiti, El Salvador, and South
Africa itself.  And I shouldn't leave out this United States, where the
corruption usually takes the form of deceit and use of mass communications to
protect the system of dominance and privilege.

Nonviolent actions and campaigns, and not the use of the state coercive
system, are what can do something about the polarization, since it is both an
institutional and spiritual problem.

The nonviolent power needs exemplification in a hundred small projects and
plans, in a thousand interactions - with political associates, police,
"opponents," friends, on the streets - until it becomes the obvious way, even
for political action.
Joe Maizlish