Non-Violent Does Not Mean Ethical Essays Example

In these two different protests, the leaders involved in each had two fundamental commonalities. First, in both cases, the leaders were charismatic with the talents to be able to inspire and motivate their followers. Second, they had the passion to change make change in his/her country. Weber mentions that passion or a sense of responsibility and sense of proportion are three qualities of key importance for a politician (Weber, p.76). While both revolutions were apparently non-violent as illustrated by the fact that protestors were not involved in any violent actions against the respective regime that they wanted to overthrow. Even though the protest was non-violent, however, some of their actions and decision could be still considered as violent. Although the decision to use hunger strikes as form of protest in China, for example, were non-violent against to the government; but they were violent on their own fellow protesters. I tend to disagree with this prompt. In my opinion, I believe that we cannot judge if a decision or action was ethical or non-ethical based on whether they were using violence or not. In comparing China’s student leaders and Egypt’s Wael Ghonim, I believed that: Ghonim could be considered as an ethical leader, but that most of the student leader’s in the China protest could be considered as non-ethical leaders.
One of the main reasons that student refused to retreat from Tiananmen Square was because there was the widespread belief that the PLA would not turn its guns on the people. Indeed, many students and Beijing residents believed that the PLA was “the people’s army” and would not carry our any orders to harm the people. (Tang Tsou, p. 232).
In Egypt, however the situation was different. Someone sent me a message asking that I publish these rumors for motivation, but I emphatically refused, and instead decide to lead a campaign against spreading false news, even if it served our cause. (Ghonim, p. 159). As he mention in the book, he refused to spread false information, because he knew that wrong information might cause the citizens to be more radical. Even though such false information might help him to achieve his groups desired goal. Instead he spread positive information. For example, “Ben Ali's speech changed everything the victory of the people of Tunisia would send a strong message to the Egyptian regime and, more importantly, to our Facebook page members: we can effect change in Egypt.” (p. 131). He was using the good examples and good accomplishments of other countries to motivate the protestors. He let the protestors know that they were doing the right thing, as a means of encouraging them to contribute.
In comparison with Tiananmen Square protestors, most of the student leaders were too radical that wrong information spread to other non-intellectual protestors. When a radical student leader took a moderate position in the spectrum of opinion at a particular moment, that leader would be replaced by a more radical leader. Later, when the deposed leader again took up a radical position (Tang Tsou, p. 22). Also, they took advantage of some students who did not really understand the situation. Someone from the Square would run to the train station to meet newcomers from the provinces. He'd announce, "I am the commander of the student security guards. Come with me! The Square needs you!" So the newcomers, who had no idea what was going on, would become the guy's guard. (The Gate of Heavenly Peace, p.53) Obviously, the student leaders could not control their followers, but it was also true that some of the leaders, principally Chai Ling and her advisers and supporters, made no attempt to restrain the most radical students and residents of Beijing. Instead their highly emotional speeches and flamboyant actions tended to inflame popular feelings. (Tang Tsou, p.234) With pure ethics of conviction, the leader’s responsibility is ensuring the pure conviction such as the justice or stability of the society without concerning about the consequences. (Weber, p.84) As a good leader, he or she should consider the consequences.
Only when the Square is washed with blood will the people of China open their eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain any of this to my fellow students (The Gate of Heavenly Peace, p.56e). Chai Ling as a leader of her fellow protesters, she was expecting the government would open fire to her unarmed fellow protesters. Only by this way, she believed that people in China could open their eyes and knew what regime and what country they were living in. However, she did not tell any protestor about what she was actually expecting. While, thousands of protestors still believed that PLA would not turn its guns on the people. I believed that no one on the Tiananmen Square were willing to be shot by a solider that served for their own country, so did Chai Ling. Ironically, Chai Ling as a leader wanted her fellow protester got killed in the Tiananmen Square in order to achieve her expectation, and she was not willing to scarified for her own life. She explained that she had different situation with other protestors that she was on government’s hit list that she should not be killed by the government. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, King actually was using similar approach as Chai Ling did. He was expecting the Birmingham police to use violence toward Negro people for keep “order” and “preventing violence”. Only by this way, government and American could realize how inhuman and ugly the Negros been treated in the jail and in the American society. (King, Page.10) However, there was some significant difference between King’s approach and Chai Ling’s approach. King was actually arrested into the jail with his fellows and he was suffering the same punishment and treatment with his fellows even though he was the leader. Another main difference was that Chai Ling was hoping her fellows to risk their life in order achieve her expectation whereas King and Ghonim were never thought about that. Our problem with the police was not a personal one. I did not want the demonstrations to turn into physical confrontations. (Ghonim, p.158) In order to avoid physical confrontations, Ghonim had been posted several some news of good police officer. He was really responsible for his fellows that he deleted the event invitation when the state security was arresting people whose names appeared on the list of attendees for the event on January 25. He wanted to make it hard to for the security forces to prepare themselves that he mentioned on the page that he would not announce the time and place for the Jan25 demonstrations until two or three days before the event. (Ghonim p.145) In his view, he believed that protecting fellows’ life was more important than anything else. Moreover, he keeps mentioning that the protest was non-violent that they would not using any kind of violence to against police during the protesting. (Ghonim, p.70) As Ghonim mentioned in the book, most Egypt police officer were really violent that some protestors might get hurt during the event. I was adamantly against suicide. Yet I was ready to die for the cause if that was the only way to change my country. (Ghonim, p.156) Comparing Ghonim and Chai Ling with King, Chai Ling was non-ethical that she was trying to take advantage of her fellows and scarified their life to achieve her expectation without risking her own life. At same time, as a leader, King and Ghonim were trying to protect the fellows.
The goal as Wael wrote was “not to overthrow the regime or to change the president overnight Because the problem now is not the president the problem now is an entire system that needs to change” (Wael Ghonim, p.147) The basic outlined demands of June 25 were for the government to address poverty, annul the emergency laws, fire Minister of the Interior Habib el-Adly, and place a 2-term limit on the presidency (Wael Ghonim, p.166). Apparently, Wael had really clear idea about what they want that, he knew that changing a president could not solve all the question and satisfy all their demand. He also knew the changing process was requiring sufficient amount of time that he was acting and thinking really rationally. Comparing with Wael, Tiananmen protesters were seems too radical and irrational about what they want. Initially, they were protesting for a democratic regime. Ever since Deng clearly reaffirmed his decision that no retreat from April 26 would be possible. The students became really radical. They wanted Li Peng step down, and Deng, Yang and other “old men” retire with honor. (Tang Tsuo, p.231) What they trying to do was overthrow the whole CCP. When the government agreed to have dialogue with the protestors. Wuer Kaixi as a representative said that the Hunger Strike Would not stop until the government met all they demand. (The Gate of Heavenly Peace, p.44) His irrational demand and attitude led the student leader’s loss their important opportunity to negotiate with the government. As Weber mentioned in his book, a good political leader should know what was right and should know the consequence of his/her action. (Weber, p. 83) During the meeting, Wuer Kaixi did not consider the consequence of his radical and irrational action.
Initially, China student protestors were calling for a democratic regime. Nevertheless, China student leaders mirrored the party it was bent on criticizing. As the protestors getting more radical, some intellectual activist trying to send a message to radical students that some actions would had decisive effect on the whole situation. (Tang Tsou, p.226) However, Wuer Kaxi believed that the intellectuals were playing the wrong role. He thought they were acting as mediators between the student and the government. After Li peng held the last official dialogue with the students. Wuer Kaixi came to the meeting as if he were the victor who was coming to teach the defeated lesson. He told the premier that even only 0.1 percent of the student voted to stay, they would all stay. (Tang Tsou, p.229) It was obvious that Wuer Kaixi was acting like the regime that he was trying to overthrow. Calhoun wrote about that some protestors complained that the leaders behaved just as the government behaved toward them. (Calhoun, p.180) In case of democracy, Ghonim did really well in this part. One of the important activities I initiated on the ElBaradei page was the use of opinion polls to make decisions. (Wael Ghonim, p. 50) After he announced the date of third silent stand, some people were suggesting to changing the date. He made a democratic decision by conducting a survey on the page that asking members about their preference. (Wael Ghonim, p. 95) As King mentioned in “letter from Birmingham Jail”, he believed that the ability of minority to vote is a prerequisite. In this case, China student leaders were keeping made non-democratic decisions and actions, but Ghonim got really just approach to making decisions.
In conclusion, I want to reclaim that non-violent approach could not always be ethical decision and action. Even though two protests are both non-violent, Wael Ghonim’s decision and action were considered as ethical decision. Ghonim always tried to protect his fellows; he always tried to spread trusty and worth sharing information; he made decision democratically; and he always thought about the consequence before taking the action. However, China student leaders used the opposite way that I believe their action and decision were non-ethical even though the approach was non-violent.