Conclusion on "A Force More Powerful"

"Nonviolent resistance becomes a “force more powerful” to the extent that it takes away a regime’s capacity to assert control. To succeed, a nonviolent movement cannot simply take a principled stand for “nonviolence.” It has to devise a strategy for action. In turn, this strategy must broadly communicate goals, mobilize people and select sanctions to punish opponents. To shift the momentum of conflict in their favor, nonviolent resisters must diversify the scope and variety of these sanctions, defend their popular base against repression and exploit their opponents’ weaknesses and concessions. In this way they undermine the regime’s claim to legitimacy."

"Those who lead an authoritarian or unjust system will then lose support inside and outside the country. When they see they can no longer count on repression to maintain control, they will begin to realize that their prospects for staying in power are no longer favorable. The result may be that they surrender, or compromise with the nonviolent movement, or even forswear oppression and cede power to the resisters. Any outcome will ultimately have to be confirmed by the nonviolent movement."

"Many times in the twentieth century, movements that spoke for the people had occasion to choose between violent insurrection and nonviolent resistance as the way to seek power. Many were seduced by the romance of revolutionary violence, believing (in Mao Zedong’s famous words) 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' Although violence can instill fear for a time or destroy lives and property, it cannot force people to give its users their consent — something they need to maintain their position.
In the stability and endurance of democracies, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt saw a superior notion of power: 'when...the Romans spoke of the civitas as their form of government, they had in mind a concept of power and law whose essence did not rely on the command-obedience relationship.' In the eighteenth century, the leaders of the political revolutions in America and Europe resurrected this same idea in their republics, 'where the rule of law, resting on the power of the people, would put an end to the rule of man over man.'"

"By dissolving the people’s consent to authoritarian rule, nonviolent resisters throughout the twentieth century not only neutralized repression. They also established democratic rule in country after country. Thanks to their efforts, a robust alternative to violence as a way to advance great causes and overturn injustice exists in the twenty-first century."

Those words are spoken by those involved with the documentary. These words enforce what Gandhi taught in the early 1900s, what he taught to influence the next generation of nonviolent resistance. In the readings for class, we discussed the difference between violence and nonviolence and the process of a successful nonviolent resistance campaign. In the film, one gentlemen states that "nonviolence means fighting back. But you are fighting back with other weapons." In the documentary, these other weapons were protests, strikes, and noncooperation, something that both the readings and the discussions have discussed and viewed as a very successful method of nonviolent resistance. The documentary and the readings I have completed in the class have shown that nonviolent resistance can take power from authority and can bring the power back to the people. This documentary successfully showed how a variety of people in a variety of situations have been able to take power back and take back their countries.

This documentary not only helped to enforce my knowledge of nonviolent resistance, but opened my eyes to the variety of methods and the variety of possibilities that can be achieved by denouncing violence and adopting those methods that both Gandhi and King so deeply believed in.