The way you oppose a wrong determines whether you will succeed in doing a right. I know this not only through my readings, particularly of my favorite political thinker, Hannah Arendt, but also from my experiences around the old Soviet bloc. The political landscape in the post Communist countries has been shaped by the way the old regimes were or were not opposed. The existence of pluralism in the opposition, the nature of the pluralism, the quality of political life, the degree of respect for opponents, the authoritarian nature of political elites and the citizenry, and much more, has been shaped by the political culture of the recent past, for better and for worse.
I am thinking about this today because of an article I read in The New York Times this morning on the opposition to the possible awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a heroic advocate of the a democratic reforms in China. Predictably the Chinese government has warned the Nobel committee that the awarding of the prize to Liu would damage governmental relations between China and Norway.
Surprisingly, there is a petition of exiled dissidents opposing the award.
According to a group of strong anti- regime exiles, Liu maligned fellow dissidents, abandoned members of the Falun Gong and was soft on Chinese leaders. “His open praise in the last 20 years for the Chinese Communist Party, which has never stopped trampling on human rights, has been extremely misleading and influential.”
The vehemence of their opposition to Liu despite the fact that at this moment he is serving an eleven year sentence for advocating democratic reforms, reveals that they view him not as an opponent, who has a more moderate pragmatic approach to democratic reforms than they, but as an enemy.
It suggests that if they were in power, they might not be that different from the regime which they so passionately oppose. In politics, as Arendt observes in one of her most beautiful books, Between Past and Future, the means are ends.
Giving a prize that is supposed to promote world peace to someone having nothing to do with it is sheer stupidity.
I have to agree with Dr. Goldfarb when he says that, “It [objection to Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel by ideological obstinent Chinese dissents] suggests that if they were in power, they might not be that different from the regime which they so passionately oppose.” But I will add that I do to some degree understand their point of view. To my knowledge, and correct me if I’m wrong, there haven’t been many, if any, opposition movements that have succeeded in enacting meaningful social change that haven’t also been, in some way, extreme. I don’t think being “extreme” necessarily precludes being non-violent though. The most successful form to me appears to be non-violent civil disobedience that is also disruptive enough to bring the status quo to a grinding halt. many of the exiled dissidents have apparently tried this, with the Tiananmen Square protests, and did not achieve the desired results. But is the only other option to use violence, guerrila tactics, etc? I don’t think so, but I also don’t have a definent answer to that question. I think one thing is for sure, change won’t happen without a united opposition.
And such disunity reminds me that those “on the right side of history” are still human after all, and prone to vice (jealousy, stubborness, avarice, etc) just as are tyrants. Also, what may seem like unity to some people, will appear to be despotism to others. Given these obstacles, in addition to the coercive power of tyrants, meaningful social change is something to be celebrated because it really is the triumph of the positive aspects of human nature over the negative, if only temporarily.
Oro Prezzo, sure you’re right if by “peace” you mean the violent Supression of dissent in order to maintain “peace.” I however believe with Albert Einstein that, “Peace cannot be kept through force, it can only be achieved by understanding.”
So I think that you really don’t understand the import of the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to someone “for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.” Notice the word “non-violent.” Notice the phrase “human rights.”
Perhaps you would prefer that it go to a despot for his “long and violent supression of human rights in order to maintain a harmonius society.” Perhaps you agree with Mao that, “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” Or perhaps you would like to clarify what you mean by “peace”?
I heartily agree with Scott in his response to Oro Presso. The ideal of peace is not the same thing as law and order, especially when both the law and the order are unjust. Fighting for justice and rights is an important part of the struggle for peace. But I would also suggest that Scott’s suggestion that successful opposition movements must necessarily be extreme is not quite right. While there were militants in the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay rights movement, the labor movement, etc. in the U.S., and there were militants as well in the opposition movement in East Central Europe, specifically in Poland in Solidarnosc, during communist times, and in the anti- Apartheid in South Africa. These were not extremist movements and the plurality of positions among supporters defined what the movements were. I think the degree to which that plurality was repressed, increased the chances that the outcome of the movement would not be particularly desirable. Common action at points is important, but unanimity of judgment and opinion is not.
Dr. Goldfarb,
It is indeed hard to tell, especially with only a one liner to go on, whether Oro Presso is siding with the Chinese government or is a dissident who has an ax to grind with Liu Xiabo for whatever reason. Sadly, sometimes there is a tendency by those who oppose tyranny to, over time, begin to resemble what they hate the most, especially as the struggle thickens. And that is one of the reasons that non-violent revolt is so admirable, and so difficult. It takes quite a lot of self-discipline on the part of the leadership to maintain that path, which is what both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. stressed- no matter what, to never betray the principle of non-violence.
But at the same time I think their model of revolt was extreme. So they were primarily whom I had in mind when I said that revolt can be both non-violent and extreme, extreme in the sense that non-violent action, such as sit-ins, massive parades, etc, can be both disruptive but also non-violent, so not really “militant” in the strict sense of the word. But strict adherence to such principles can also limit the plurality of the movement, and hence the inclusiveness of it. And “plurality” can be repressed by either the protest leaders or the powers that be, which is certainly an important this to consider. I did not consider the possibly negative aspects of a lack of plurality, and how that might play out in a given context where dissent must be tolerated among the dissenters in order for the movement to gain steam and expand.
Scott, I guess we are using the word extreme differently. I just want to emphasize one simple proposition: the way one opposes shapes the way one may eventually govern. That is the sad case of Leninism, and the pattern has repeated itself in many cases around the world. Dissent must be tolerated not only because it makes it possible for people with some differences to instrumentally act together, but also because their very collective subjectivity is formed through their common action, which includes their differences and which will inform their future actions.
Understood and I agree. And so even the dissenters must tolerate dissent amongst themselves lest they replace one oppressive system with more of the same. This is what “extremists,” in the tradition sense of the word, usually do.
When I was using the word “extreme,” I was thinking of what MLK called “fighting physical force with soul force,” or the “marvelous new militancy” which would not cease “until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” In any event, I should perhaps stop using the word “extreme” to describe such action, lest I be misunderstood or even misrepresent it.
I don’t know that this argument follows: Because fellow dissidents are frustrated that he is being awarded despite praising the same government that has put him in chains for speaking freely, they would do the same if they were in control.
If those dissidents are correct, and Liu Xiaobo truly does praise tyranny, then perhaps it is unfortunate that he is getting attention for his views as a liberator. The Nobel Peace Prize may be an authority, but it’s hardly unimpeachable. They’re primarily in place because the founder felt guilty for inventing TNT(or dynamite), and he needed to make a PR change.
On the other hand, Liu Xiaobo might be contributing to the general conversation of democracy in China that is overall beneficial to the world. I remember that the Civil War was similar, with abolitionists frustrated with those not as fervent as they, Douglas running on for the Republican ticket to spite a President, and, later, Lincoln standing firm in maintaining a bloody war when the rest of the nation just wanted peace. The advancement toward freedom is never easy, never finished, and rarely straightforward.
Either way, the conversation cannot be about just one person. It has to be about everyone.