The Efficacy of Nonviolent Militancy:people.westminstercollege.edu/staff/mjhinsdale/Research... · Web viewEven in the 20th Century, a century distinguished by unsurpassed technological

The Efficacy of Nonviolent Militancy:

An Examination of Two Successful Nonviolent Movements

Mario D. Castillo

Dr. Michael Popich

Abstract

The aim of this research project is threefold. The first and second objective is to provide a historical portrait of Mohandas K. Gandhi’s Salt March of 1930 and the Birmingham Campaign of 1963 led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Three questions will be addressed in the examination of these two successful nonviolent social movements: first, what was the problem or condition that necessitated nonviolent civil disobedience? Second, what was Gandhi and King’s intended purpose for violating the law? And third, what action was taken in favor of the oppressed as a result of the demonstrations that made the movement a success? The final objective of this research project is to identify the ‘base criteria’ that were essential to the success of both movements. I will argue that the three components of a nonviolent social movement that are conjointly necessary for its success include: planned, organized, and strategic direct action; the type of leadership (charismatic); and the type of government (democratic).

Introduction

Perhaps the most pervasive social problem throughout the history of the world is and has

been violence. One has only to study world history to discover that violence is a perpetual

phenomenon that humankind has been unable to successfully repudiate on both the macro and

micro levels. Even in the 20th Century, a century distinguished by unsurpassed technological

advancements and scientific ingenuity, history has once again to write a chapter including two

catastrophic and calamitous world wars and horrific acts of genocide. What does this indicate?

This is indicative of the fact that multitudes of people are learning, if not mastering the art of war

whereas far fewer people it seems are learning and attempting to master the art of nonviolence.

There can be no gainsaying of the fact that just as one can learn to be violent, so too can

one learn to be nonviolent. The former is an education deeply rooted in, and inextricably

connected to fear, whereas the latter is an education deeply rooted in, and inextricably connected

to love. There have been a minority of men and women who have employed and even exalted

the use of nonviolence on a magnificent scale. The most famous of these personalities include

great leaders and teachers such as Jesus Christ, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin

Luther King, Jr., Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Dalai Lama. For the purpose of this essay I will

focus on two of the above mentioned persons.

Mohandas K. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are honorifically recognized as two

of the greatest leaders and social reformers of the Twentieth Century. Through their commit-

ment to nonviolence and disciplined direct action these men were markedly successful in their

efforts to bring about significant and meaningful social change. Gandhi’s salt march of 1930 and

the Birmingham campaign of 1963 revealed to the world the power and efficacy of nonviolent

militancy.

By conducting a comparative analysis on these two successful nonviolent movements I

will satisfy the following objectives: First, I will provide a historical portrait of each movement

and address the following questions: what was the problem or condition that necessitated

nonviolent civil disobedience? What was Gandhi/King’s purpose for violating the law in their

respective movements? And what was the action taken as a result of the demonstrations that

made the movement a success? Lastly, I will discuss the three criteria, which I will refer to as

“base criteria,” that were conjointly necessary for each movement’s success. These include, but

are not limited to: planned, organized, and strategic direct action; the type of leadership which I

have identified as charismatic, and the type of government each movement was dealing with

which I have identified as democratic. In examining these two successful nonviolent movements

I will utilize the Modus Ponens argument form to logically defend my position which is

structured as follows:

If P, then QP---------------Q

A1) the “base criteria” (P) were conjointly present in Gandhi’s Salt March of 1930 and consequently the movement was successful (Q).

A2) the “base criteria” (P) were conjointly present in The Birmingham Campaign of 1963 and consequently the movement was successful (Q).

A Historical Portrait of the Salt March of 1930

While residing in South Africa between the years 1893 to 1915, Mohandas K. Gandhi

labored diligently and unrelentingly for the rights and liberation of the Indian minority (Ruhe p.

23). In addition to forming the Natal Indian Congress and combating legal and social

discrimination against Indians, Gandhi developed a method of nonviolent passive-resistance

which he suitably termed satyagraha (Ruhe p. 21).

Satyagraha (satya = truth, agraha = firmness; hold fast to) literally translated into

English from the Sanskrit means truth-force. Gandhi often cautioned his followers not to

confuse Satyagraha with passive-resistance. Passive-resistance, Gandhi thought, had a negative

connotation in that it was often perceived to be a weapon of the weak that could be characterized

by hatred and possibly manifest itself as violence (Gandhi p. 318). Satyagraha however, “was a

more active state than physical resistance or violence, it represented a method of determination

and positive action that required resolution and a strong character” (Lewy p. 298). In sum,

satyagraha was an assertive, often confrontational method of nonviolent resistance only to be

employed by courageous individuals who were committed to truth, and absolute nonviolence in

thought, word, deed.

Although Gandhi had employed this method of nonviolent militancy in South Africa with

considerable success, the most celebrated and arguably most successful satyagraha campaign

that he launched in India was the historic salt march of 1930. The salt march was a carefully

organized campaign designed to overtly defy the edicts of the British Salt Act of 1882 which

provided Britain with a monopoly on the sale, control, and manufacture of salt (Ruhe p. 74).

Ten days before the commencement of the march, Gandhi wrote a lengthy letter to Lord

Irwin articulating the grievances the burden of the salt tax placed on the poorest people of India.

Gandhi also expressed why civil-disobedience was necessary to combat what he identified as the

“curse” of British rule.

Dear Friend,

Before embarking on Civil Disobedience and taking the risk I have dreaded to take all these years, Iwould fain approach you and find a way out.

My personal faith is absolutely clear. I cannot intentionally hurt anything that lives, much less fellow human beings, even though they may do the greatest wrong to me and mine. Whilst, therefore, I hold the British rule to be a curse, I do not intend harm to a single Englishman or to any legitimate interesthe may have in India.

I must not be misunderstood. Though I hold the British rule in India to be a curse, I do not, therefore, consider Englishmen in general to be worse than any other people on earth. I have the privilege of claiming many Englishmen as dearest friends. Indeed much that I have learnt of the evil of British rule is due to the writings of frank and courageous Englishmen who have not hesitated to tell the unpalatable truth about that rule…

And why do I regard British rule as a curse?

It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system of progressive exploitation and by a ruinous expensive military and civil administration which the country can never afford. It has reduced uspolitically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundation of our culture. And by the policy of crueldisarmament it has degraded us spiritually.

In common with many of my countrymen, I had hugged the hope that the proposed Round TableConference might furnish a solution…I fear…there never has been any intention of granting Dominion Status to India in the near future.

It seems as clear as daylight that responsible British statesmen do not contemplate any alteration in British policy that might adversely affect Britain’s commerce with India…If nothing is done toend the process of exploitation India must be bled with an ever increasing speed…

Let me put before you some of the salient points.

The terrific pressure of land revenue, which furnishes a large part of the total, must undergo considerable modification in an Independent India…the whole revenue system has to be so revised as to make the peasant’s good its primary concern. But the British system seems to be designed to crush the very life out of him. Even the salt he must use to live is so taxed as to make the burdenfall heaviest on him, if only because of the heartless impartiality of its incidence. The tax shows itself still more burdensome on the poor man when it is remembered that salt is the one thing he must eat more than the rich man…The drink and drug revenue, too, is derived from the poor. Itsaps the foundations both of their health and morals.

The iniquities sampled above are maintained in order to carry on a foreign administration, demonstrably the most expensive in the world. Take your own salary. It is over 21,000 rupeesper month, besides many other indirect additions…You are getting over 700 rupees a day againstIndia’s average income of less than two annas per day. Thus you are getting much over five thousand times India’s average income. On bended knee, I ask you to ponder over this phenomenon.I have taken a personal illustration to drive home a painful truth. I have too great a regard for youas a man to wish to hurt your feelings. I know that you do not need the salary you get. Probably the whole of your salary goes for charity. But a system that provides for such an arrangement deserves to be summarily scrapped. What is true of the Viceregal salary is true generally of the

whole administration…Nothing but organized nonviolence can check the organized violence ofthe British Government…

This non-violence will be expressed through Civil Disobedience, for the moment confined to theinmates of Satyagraha [Sabarmati] Ashram, but ultimately designed to cover all those who chooseto join the movement. I know that in embarking on non-violence I shall be running what might betermed a mad risk. But the victories of truth have never been won without risks, often of the gravest character. Conversion of a nation that has consciously or unconsciously preyed uponanother, far more numerous, far more ancient and no less cultured than itself, is worth any amountof risk…

My ambition is no less than to convert the British people through non-violence, and thus make themsee the wrong they have done to India. I do not seek to harm your people. I want to serve themeven as I want to serve my own people…If the [Indian] people join me as I expect they will, the sufferings they will undergo, unless the British nation soon retraces its steps, will be enough tomelt the stoniest hearts.

The plan through Civil-Disobedience will be to combat such evils as I have sampled out. I respectfully invite you to pave the way for the immediate removal of those evils, and thus opena way for a real conference between equals…But if you cannot see your way to deal with theseevils and if my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shallproceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt Laws…It is, I know, open to you to frustrate my design by arresting me. I hope that there will be tens of thousands ready, in a disciplined manner, to take up the work after me…

I have no desire to cause you unnecessary embarrassment, or any at all, so far as I can help…If you will care to discuss matters with me, and if to that end you would like me to postponepublication of this letter, I shall gladly refrain on receipt of telegram…

This letter is not in any way intended as a threat but is a simple and sacred duty, peremptory on a civil resister. Therefore I am having it specially delivered by a young English friend who believes in the Indian cause and is a full believer in non-violence and whom Providence seemsto have sent me, as it were, for he very purpose.

Your sincere friend,M. K. GANDHI (Chadha p. 289-291)

On 12 March 1930, Gandhi, and 78 satyagrahi followers including two Muslims, one

Christian, and two untouchables, departed from his communal ashram on the outskirts of

Ahmedabad to embark on a 240 mile walk to the coastal town of Dandi (Ruhe p. 74). At the

seaside hamlet of Dandi, the satyagrahi’s intended to violate the British Salt Act by collecting

salt from the seashore (Weber p. 46-51).

In a strictly disciplined manner, Gandhi and his followers arose each morning at 6:30

A.M. and commenced their walk averaging less than twelve miles a day (Chadha p. 292). After

24 days of marching, Gandhi and thousands of his followers arrived at the Arabian Sea at Dandi

on 5 April, 1930. They camped and prayed throughout the night and at the break of dawn the

next morning, Gandhi openly violated the Salt Act by picking up a fragment of salt from the sea

(Ruhe p. 75).

Consequently, this simple yet momentous act ignited a remarkable national response.

Nonviolent civil-disobedience erupted immediately and within a week, as Terence McNamee

describes “much of India was in the throes of nonviolent revolution. Everywhere Indians began

to manufacture salt, challenge the laws on seditious literature and burn foreign cloth. Legislators

and local officials resigned [and] a number of salt factories were peacefully invaded” (Ruhe p.

75).

Due to this pervading climate of civil disobedience, the Viceroy Lord Irwin initiated

negotiations with Gandhi and after a series of discussions the two men arrived at a mutual

agreement ultimately signing what came to be known as the Delhi Pact or the Irwin-Gandhi Pact

(Chadha p. 301). The pact settled on four basic points: first, all constitutional matters were to be

discussed at a Round Table Conference in London; second, the civil disobedience campaign

would be called off; third, people living in coastal areas would be permitted to manufacture salt

for their own personal use; and fourth, political prisoners who were not involved in violent

activities would be released (Chadha p. 301).

A Historical Portrait of the Birmingham Campaign of 1963

Prior to the signing of the Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964 by president Lyndon B.

Johnson, racial segregation and discrimination in Birmingham, Alabama was both a conspicuous

practice as well as a dominating political issue. In his inaugural address on January 14, 1963, for

example, Governor-elect George Wallace unashamedly declared, “Segregation now! Segregation

tomorrow! Segregation forever!” (McWhorter p. 311). The rhetoric of Wallace’s speech was a

diminutive manifestation of the greater social disparities that existed between African Americans

and the white majority in the Deep South.

In Birmingham, blacks were not only exploited economically and relegated to the status

of second class citizen in political matters, they were also subjected to racial segregation that was

rigidly enforced by custom and law, and racial discrimination (Bass p. 2). In 1960, for example,

due to discriminatory hiring practices there was not a single black policeman, fireman, or bus

operator in Birmingham. Additionally, the city’s foremost department stores did not hire blacks

as salespersons, and no blacks were employed as cashiers or clerks in Birmingham banks or large

white-owned supermarkets. Such restrictions on job opportunities consequently led to a median

family income for Birmingham blacks that was less than one-half that of whites (Garrow p. 165).

These frightful conditions led to a multiparty effort between Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth of

The Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (ACMHR) to launch a direct action

campaign in Birmingham. Although the project was initially postponed in consideration of the

mayoral elections between Albert Boutwell and Eugene “Bull” Connor, less than twenty-four

hours after Boutwell had won the election by a margin of 8,000 votes, the first phase of project C

(for “confrontation”) was launched (Garrow p. 177).

The campaign sought to employ a variety of nonviolent methods of confrontation,

including boycotts, sit-ins, kneel-ins, and mass marches, to pressure the white leaders of

Birmingham to comply with six explicit demands: desegregation of the store facilities; adoption

of fair hiring practices by those stores; dismissal of all charges from previous protests; equal

employment opportunities for blacks within the city government; reopening on a desegregated

basis of Birmingham’s closed municipal recreation facilities; and establishment of a biracial

committee to pursue further desegregation (Garrow p. 237).

In the early stages of the campaign mounting obstacles threatened to halt the progress and

effectiveness of the movement. Demonstrations were faltering, and SCLC bail bond funds were

depleted (Phillips p. 165). Additionally, city officials “issued a sweeping injunction barring 133

civil rights leaders from participating in or encouraging any kind of protest, mass demonstration,

boycotts or sit-in” (Garrow p. 178). On April 12, which happened to fall on Good Friday, Martin

Luther King, Jr. and Ralph Abernathy decided to violate the court injunction and both men were

arrested as a result.

While in jail King wrote his famous “letter from Birmingham Jail” which was personally

addressed to eight white clergymen who sought to avoid violence by publicly discouraging

King’s demonstrations. The letter skillfully articulated the grievances that necessitated the cause

for nonviolent demonstrations in Birmingham and ultimately became widely circulated.

By the time king was released from jail on April 19 the campaign was faltering

significantly. Due to a lack of adult demonstrators willing to risk arrest, James Bevel and

Andrew Young of SCLC decided to enlist high school students to take part in the nonviolent

demonstrations. When more than a thousand students left school on May 2, to march, the Public

Safety Commissioner, Bull Connor unleashed police dogs and used fire hoses on the young

demonstrators. The media broadcast the brutal scenes around the world which ultimately

pressured the Kennedy administration to intervene more forcefully.

On May 10 the movement proved to be a success. An agreement was reached between

the black and white leadership for the following: to desegregate the lunch counters and other

public accommodations downtown; to create a committee to eliminate discriminatory hiring

practices; to arrange for the release of jailed protestors; and to establish regular means of

communication between black and white leaders (Garrow p. 252).

To further the success of the movement, on May 20, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court

rendered a decision declaring Birmingham segregation ordinances unconstitutional and the

following year Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act which put an end to legal

segregation entirely (McWhorter p. 449).

Planned, Organized and Strategic Direct Action

Planned, organized, and strategic direct action was a critical element to the success of

both Gandhi’s salt march of 1930 and the Birmingham Campaign of 1963 led by Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr. Both men were aware of the importance and power of direct action. They

understood that without active pressure on the existing power structure that was massive,

organized, and disciplined, no significant social change would take place. These men also

understood that action without adequate planning was foolish and detrimental to the

advancement of the movement.

Through the careful planning, organizing, and strategizing of a nonviolent movement, the

movement leaders and participants aim to do the following: (1) first, to identify and understand

the problem or condition that necessitates nonviolent direct action; (2) second, to seek to develop

attainable goals and objectives that would effectively and morally remedy the existing problem;

(3) third, to develop practical methods by which to achieve the desired goals; (4) and fourth, to

cultivate disciplined direct action among all demonstrators. By adhering to the precepts of this

model of organizing effective nonviolent civil disobedience, movement leaders and organizers

ultimately increase their chances of success even if and when external risks are heightened.

Both Gandhi and King effectively led powerful nonviolent social movements because

they implemented the above strategies. Both men (1) identified and understood the problem that

frustrated their cause for social justice. Before launching a nonviolent campaign, for example,

Gandhi conducted extensive research by gathering facts and relevant data, and analyzing

statistical information in an effort to understand the full extent of the oppressive conditions

confronting the Indian people. As a result of his extensive research, Gandhi composed an

Eleven-Point Program which sought to expose many of the problems he had identified in an

effort to amend them (Chadha p. 288). The assortments of demands were shrewdly chosen so as

to appeal to almost every demographic of the Indian population; they included: reduction of land

revenue by fifty percent; abolition of the salt tax; total prohibition of alcohol; a protective tariff

against foreign cloth; enactment of a coastal reservation bill in favor of Indian shipping;

revaluation of the rupee; reduction of military expenditure by at least fifty percent; reduction of

the salaries of civil servants by half; release of all political prisoners not condemned for murder

or attempted murder; abolition or control of the Criminal Investigation Department; and issue of

firearms for self-defense subject to popular control (Chadha p. 288).

Similarly, before launching the Birmingham Campaign in mid-January of 1963, King

initiated a three day retreat and planning session with his SCLC staff and board of directors at

Dorchester, Georgia. During the retreat, the team gathered facts, statistics, and other relevant

information concerning the existent racial problems in Birmingham, specifically relating to

discriminatory hiring practices (Garrow p. 175). SCLC, in conjunction with members of

ACMHR sought to identify and understand the problem before moving into direct action on a

massive scale. It was King’s firm belief that hasty action was reckless; he believed that one must

plan adequately so as not to make the mistake of moving into direct action irresponsibly (Phillips

p. 167). Gandhi was no less responsible in this manner.

Once Gandhi and King had identified and clearly understood the problem that challenged

the cause of their movement, both men implemented the second precept mentioned above by (2)

developing attainable goals and objectives. Although Gandhi, for example, had developed his

Eleven Point Program he chose only to assault the salt tax which he argued was no small

injustice. Gandhi realized that it was more tactical to choose one of the problems he identified

and develop a method to combat it aggressively rather than spread himself too thin by addressing

every problem through nonviolent collective action.

In a similar vein, King and his team quickly developed concrete goals that, if attained,

would remedy much of the problem of racial segregation and discriminatory hiring practices in

Birmingham. The goals and objectives that the team developed included desegregation of the

store facilities; adoption of fair hiring practices by those stores; dismissal of all charges from

previous protests; equal employment opportunities for blacks within the city government;

reopening on a desegregated basis of Birmingham’s closed municipal recreation facilities; and

the establishment of a biracial committee to pursue further desegregation (Garrow p. 237).

Upon creating clear objectives and goals for the campaign, Gandhi and King, along with

their staff and supporters, engaged in a laborious process of (3) developing practical methods by

which to achieve their desired goals. Gandhi’s method was simple yet dramatic and climactic.

He was meticulously selective in choosing the route he and the marchers were to walk each day

and the villages they were going to visit during the course of the march. Additionally, he

planned at what hour the march would commence daily and how many miles a day they would

march. In an act of prudence, Gandhi also developed alternative plans of action and selected

individuals to assume leadership in the event that his primary plan was thwarted by the British

Government.

King’s methods were somewhat different but no less dramatic. While at the three day

retreat in Georgia, King and his team developed a list of methods of civil disobedience that they

would employ in an effort to incite confrontation and dramatize the problem of racial segregation

in Birmingham. The team decided to conduct boycotts, sit-ins, kneel-ins, and mass marches

(Garrow p. 237).

Once the leaders and organizers of a nonviolent movement have successfully

implemented the first three precepts of the above model, they can then (4) begin to cultivate

disciplined direct action among all demonstrators. Gandhi and King were both successful in this

endeavor which greatly enhanced the power and effectiveness of their respective movement.

Gandhi, for example, was clear about the persons he wanted to participate in the salt march and

he underwent a laborious scrutinizing process to select those individuals that would march with

him. The marchers had to have exceptionally high ethical standards and be as morally upright as

possible in order that the movement could have the moral force capable of strongly appealing to

the conscience of the oppressor. Gandhi’s secretary, Mahadev Desai, wrote that Gandhi was

“quite clear that selection should be made only from those who had gone through the rigid

discipline of the Ashram [and] who tried to follow truth and non-violence in thought, word, and

deed.” Desai further added that “The first batch of satyagrahi’s must be as pure in life as could

be found” (Weber p. 105). Once Gandhi had selected the final seventy-nine marchers he

published their names and statistical information in Young India for further reference and

inquiry.

A central aim of the Birmingham Campaign was for movement organizers and leaders to

teach and continually stress the importance of nonviolent disciplined direct action. All potential

demonstrators were thoroughly educated and trained in the techniques of nonviolent civil

disobedience. As a prerequisite for participation in any nonviolent demonstrations, participants

were expected to sign the “Birmingham Pledge” which promoted spiritual uplift, moral

consciousness, service, sacrifice, and orderly discipline (Phillips p. 158). Even when SCLC staff

members enlisted students to participate in the demonstrations they demanded the same kind of

discipline and self-control from the students. The children were urged to see such films as Walk

to Freedom and The Nashville Story and to hear movement leaders including King and Bevel

speak about the importance of nonviolent direct action (Garrow p. 180). These measures were

taken in an effort to solidify strong disciplined support through education and moral persuasion.

Donald T. Phillips, author of Martin Luther King, Jr., on leadership:

inspiration and wisdom for challenging times, summed up in clear prose the

importance and significance of planned, organized, and strategic direct

action. He wrote that “a detailed plan of action, accompanied by specific goals, serves

to mobilize people toward the future. It provides much-needed context and purpose for members

of the organization. It helps unify people, motivate them, [and] focus their talent and energy.”

He goes on further to add that “Proper planning also helps a person or an organization achieve

things” (Phillips p. 164).

Both Gandhi and King achieved great success during the course of

their careers because of planned, organized, and strategic direct action.

Once can see that both men (1) identified and clearly understood the problem or condition

that necessitated nonviolent direct action; (2) developed specific, attainable goals and objectives

that would remedy the existing problem; (4) And finally, cultivated disciplined direct action

among the movement demonstrators. As a result of adhering to these guidelines the salt march

of 1930 and the Birmingham campaign of 1963 were markedly successful nonviolent social

movements.

Type of Leadership: Charismatic

A second component that is critical to the success of a nonviolent social movement is

charismatic leadership. To many scholars and historians it is palpably clear that both Gandhi and

King were unique charismatic leaders. But what is charisma and what were the evidentiary signs

of charisma in Gandhi and King’s disposition that made their leadership style so effective? And

more importantly, why is charismatic leadership key to the success of a nonviolent social

movement?

In this section of the essay, I will provide a working definition of charisma exploring

both the etymology of the word and the traditional Weberian definition. Secondly, I will discuss

Martin E. Spencer’s concept of supernatural and secular charisma and provide examples of how

Gandhi and King embody these two types of charisma. And lastly, I will discuss why

charismatic leadership is critical to a nonviolent social movement by using Shamir, House, and

Arthur’s self-concept based theory, looking specifically at Leader Behavior including: Role

Modeling and Frame Alignment.

To understand the potency of charismatic leadership especially within the context of a

nonviolent social movement, one must first know what charisma is. The word charisma comes

from the Greek root charis, meaning “grace, kindness, favor,” and was used by St. Paul in the

New Testatment to denote “spiritual gifts” or charismata (Eliade and Adams p. 218). People

who possessed charismata, or “special graces” were believed to manifest the spirit of God in

several different ways including: the use of wise words, having special knowledge exhibiting

great faith, performing miracles, prophesying, and speaking in tongues. In short, charisma was

an attribute of persons possessing spiritual, God given gifts, and who were believed to be

endowed with divinely appointed leadership and authority (Eliade and Adams p. 218).

More recently the term charisma has been expanded due in large part to the German

sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920). Weber, who is perhaps most famous for his book, The

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, wrote extensively on charismatic leadership in his

Theory of Social and Economic Organization. The term charisma, Weber noted,

will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a “leader.” In primitive circumstances this peculiar kind of quality is thought of as resting on magical powers, whether of prophets, persons with a reputation for therapeutic or legal wisdom, leaders in the hunt, or heroes in war […] what is alone important is how the individual is actually regarded by those subject to charismatic authority,by his “followers” or “disciples.” (Weber p. 398)

Although Weber aligns his definition of charisma with the traditional, biblical meaning of

the word, scholars such as Martin E. Spencer contend that charisma has been used in more than

just the spiritual sense. In his article, What Is Charisma, Spencer asserts that there are three

“senses” of the term charisma. For the purpose of this essay, I’ll focus solely on two of them;

the concept of both supernatural charisma and secular charisma (Spencer p. 341).

Spencer’s concept of supernatural charisma does not diverge in any significant way from

Weber’s understanding and use of the term. Spencer writes that supernatural charisma “is only

possible in an age of belief where the attitude of awe is conceptualized in the belief system of a

world populated by devils, angels, spirits, demons, and gods; charisma then, becomes a “gift” or

a ‘mana’ that flows into and out of persons and objects” (Spencer p. 342). Spencer further adds

that “supernatural charisma arises where the bearer of charisma persuades his followers that he

possesses power of supernatural origins” (Spencer p. 345). Paralleling the traditional Weberian

and Greek meaning of the word, again, it is clear that charisma is a kind of “gift” bestowed upon

an individual that is not common, or perhaps even accessible, to the ordinary person. It is

distinct, it is unique, and most importantly it is transcendent, spiritual, or godly.

Supernatural charisma, as defined by Spencer and in alignment with Max Weber’s

definition, was a quality that both Gandhi and King were credited with having. Gandhi, for

example, was often revered among many of his followers and disciples to be a living deity. Even

Rabindranath Tagore, the great Bengali poet and Nobel Laureate who had great admiration for

Gandhi, believed that Gandhi possessed “unique spiritual qualities.” It was Tagore, in fact, who

conferred onto Gandhi the title of Mahatma meaning Great Soul, a title which has remained with

him to this day (Ruhe p. 49). Many followers also believed that Gandhi was a saint and still

others considered him to be “another Christ.”

Similarly, Martin Luther King, Jr. possessed supernatural charisma which was evident,

and particularly felt, during his rousing, persuasive, and powerful oratory. As early in the Civil

Rights Movement as the Montgomery Bus Boycott, King was considered to be a chosen man of

God. In a sense, he was thought of being a Moses-like figure destined to lead the African-

American people from the Egypt of racial injustice to the promised land of freedom and equality

in America. Many followers, close associates, friends, and family members believed that King

was even a prophet of God who had come to suffer and prophesy for the salvation of his people

and the cause of justice, an attitude that King himself began to believe in and personify. During

an interview Coretta Scott King stated that when King was delivering his “I Have a Dream”

speech it was as if the Kingdom of Heaven had been manifest on the earth for a brief moment.

Clearly, both Gandhi and King possessed supernatural charisma in that they were believed,

mostly by their followers, to possess divine qualities.

In addition to possessing supernatural charisma, Gandhi and king possessed what Spencer

terms secular charisma. Spencer’s concept of secular charisma is uniquely different and slightly

more complex than supernatural charisma. He argues that the secular charismatic leader differs

from a supernatural charismatic leader in that the individual does not influence and lead people

solely, or even at all, on the basis of whether or not he possesses spiritual gifts, rather the secular

charismatic leader exhibits two unique qualities, mastery and representation. In the case of

secular charisma, Spencer states,

The attitude of awe directed at persons or objects also exists, but it is no longer wrapped in the conceptual package of supernatural belief […] The secular charismatic leader acquires his following by demonstrating his powers in a quite different fashion […] The secular charismaticleader, in becoming a leader exhibits mastery or representation, or both. (Spencer p. 345)

Spencer asserts that a charismatic leader who exhibits mastery basically brings order to a

particular chaotic or restless situation. In short, “he resolves the existential chaos of reality. He

structures a cosmos. He provides guides for action and a promise for the future” (Spencer p.

345). Mastery then could be exhibited by a revolutionary leader, a sage, and even an army

general whose secular charisma is identifiable through success in battle (Spencer p. 345).

With mastery, the “attitude of awe” is aroused more so by the leader’s ability to show

mastery of skill and performance. An army general, for example, possesses secular charisma in

that his mastery of military skills and successful performance in battle arouse a sense of awe in

others, especially followers. As Spencer states, “A general may acquire a reputation for strategic

skills among a small circle of his colleagues in time of peace, but he cannot become charismatic

until war gives him the opportunity to demonstrate mastery over events (Spencer p. 346).

While charisma through mastery brings order, charisma through representation brings

satisfying order. “In this second major dimension of charisma” Spencer asserts, “the leader

structures a universe of values for his followers that satisfies deep-felt needs” (Spencer p. 347).

Whereas in the case of mastery the sentiments of the followers are characterized more by awe,

with representation the sentiments are characterized more by enthusiasm (Spencer p. 347).

Spencer provides styles of charismatic leadership that are ordered into “typological points” that

will not be discussed in depth in this essay but are important to note; they include: the innovator,

the articulator, and the symbolizer.

In addition to possessing supernatural charisma, Gandhi and King did indeed exhibit the

qualities of secular charisma. Both men skillfully commanded their massive following not only

through skillful oratory, as in the case of King, but also through a developed philosophy that

effectively reached out and resonated to the masses of people. Gandhi’s following was strong

and massive because he related to the masses of people he served not only through his speech but

through the way he lived his life day to day. He sought to bring a sense of hope, redemption, and

salvation to his people that inspired and motivated them to action. King was also successful in

achieving these ends.

We have seen that Gandhi and King possessed supernatural as well as secular charisma,

but why is it important, if not critical, for a nonviolent social movement to have charismatic

leaders? To answer this question effectively we must first explore key insights explored in an

article titled The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory,

co-authored by Boas Shamir, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur. The authors contend that

“motivational processes” are activated by two types of Leader Behavior: (a) Role Modeling, and

(b) Frame Alignment (Shamir, House and Arthur p. 584). Vicarious learning, the authors assert,

occurs when the relevant messages are inferred by followers from observation of leaders’ behavior,

life style, emotional reactions, values, aspirations, preferences, and the like. The leader becomes a “representative character” a symbol which brings together in once concentrated image the way peoplein a given social environment organize and give meaning and direction to their lives. He or she becomes an image that helps define for the followers just what kinds of traits, values, beliefs andbehaviors it is good and legitimate to develop. Thus the leader provides an ideal, a point of referenceand focus for followers’ emulation and vicarious learning.

This is sometimes exemplified by leaders’ display of self-sacrificial behavior in the interest of themission. By taking risks, making personal sacrifices, and engaging in unconventional ideologicalbehavior charismatic leaders demonstrate their own courage and conviction in the mission and thus both earn credibility and serve as a role model of the values of the vision and the mission. (Shamir, House and Arthur p. 585)

Gandhi and King had mastered the leader behavior of role modeling; in fact both men

lived by the philosophy of leading by example. Gandhi once commented that his life was his

message and he lived true to the saying until his death in 1948. All of Gandhi’s behaviors and

actions were directed toward some symbolic representation of the ideals he espoused. His

decision to wear Khadi, for example, was politically, socially, and economically motivated

especially in regards to native Indians. Peter Rühe stated that, “the boycott of British cloth was

part of [Gandhi’s] strategy for the social and moral regeneration of India.” He further adds that

“in previous centuries women used to weave their own Khadi or homespun cloth in Indian

villages. The practice kept them usefully employed and brough dignity to their lives […] by

renewing the practice and eschewing foreign-made garments [Gandhi] hoped to reassert ancient

Indian virtues and stem the tide of Western materialism” (Ruhe p. 50). Gandhi’s move to wear

only a simple Khadi garment symbolized the simplicity that he encouraged his followers to live

by and effectively identified him with the poorest people of India (Ruhe p. 50).

Gandhi also began observing a day of silence every Monday later in his life. For Gandhi,

observing periods of silence not only brought him inner peace but was also deeply symbolic.

The practice was drawn from the Hindu principles of mouna (silence) and shanty (peace). By

observing silence one day a week Gandhi, either consciously or unconsciously, communicated

several symbolic teachings to his followers. First, it was an opportunity for him to harness the

often exaggerated and tragic misuse of the spoken word and thereby exalt the power of example.

Second, it was an opportunity for him to dramatize the importance of listening rather than

speaking. It was clear to Gandhi, that people were more often quick to speak and slow to listen

but it was Gandhi’s intention to emphasize the importance of being quick to listen and slow to

speak. Here again, Gandhi used his example, the symbol of his being, to teach his followers and

the world a higher form of living that was not only spiritually beneficial but socially significant.

Martin Luther King, Jr. also effectively employed the leader behavior of role modeling

during the Civil Rights Movement especially by exemplifying his capacity to suffer and show

courage for the cause of Civil Rights. Many times during the Civil Rights Movement, King was

the first one to submit to arrest which communicated to his followers that he was not asking them

to make sacrifices he himself was unwilling to make. King was not only arrested several times

during the movement but he was also beat, stoned, stabbed and severely criticized often by

members of the black community. Indeed, he carried a weighty burden. But like Gandhi, King

was highly conscious of his example and how his actions and behaviors would ultimately

influence others. King was mindful of the fact that his followers would be more than likely

unwilling to make sacrifices if he was unwilling himself to make them; in this sense, King did

display self sacrificial behavior in the interest of the movement that ultimately advanced the

cause of it (Shamir, House and Arthur p. 585).

Shamir, House, and Arthur also discuss the leader behavior of frame alignment which is

an especially important concept for the purpose of this essay. Frame alignment,

Refers to the linkage of individual and leader interpretive orientations, such that some set of followers’interests, values and beliefs and the leader’s activities, goals and ideology become congruent and complementary. The term “frame” denotes “schemata of interpretation” that enables individuals tolocate, perceive and label occurrences within their life and the world at large. By rendering events or occurrences meaningful, frames function to organize experience and guide action, whether individualor collective.

Charismatic leaders engage in communicative processes that affect frame alignment and “mobilize”

followers to action. They interpret the present and past. They link present behaviors to past events by citing historical examples. They articulate an ideology clearly, often using labels and slogans. they provide a vivid image of the future. Further, they amplify certain values and identities and suggest linkages between expected behaviors, amplified values and identities, and their vision of thefuture.

By articulating an ideological vision and recruiting a number of followers who share the values of thevision, charismatic leaders provide for followers a sense of identity with the collectivity and a senseof efficacy resulting from membership in the collectivity. Articulation of high performance expectations,together with display of confidence in followers, results in enhancing both follower self-esteem andself-worth. (Shamir, House and Arthur p. 584-585)

It is through a basic knowledge of the concept of frame alignment that one is able to see

more clearly why charismatic leadership is critical to the success of a nonviolent social

movement. Charismatic leaders, both supernatural and secular, coupled with the two leader

behaviors mentioned above, will typically arouse, inspire, motivate, and successfully maintain

collective action among multitudes of followers. Such leaders engage in communicative and

symbolic role modeling processes that effectively “mobilize” followers to action (Shamir, House

and Arthur p. 585).

It is through the charismatic leader’s ability to lead and orchestrate the disciplined direct

action of multitudes of people that intense pressure is effectively put onto the existing power

structure. This “pressure of the people” motivates, if not forces, the leaders of the existing

oppressive power structure to negotiate and compromise with the charismatic leaders and

ultimately change its oppressive policies. Due in large part to the effects of charismatic

leadership the salt march of 1930 and the Birmingham campaign of 1963 were markedly

successful nonviolent social movements.

Type of Government: Democratic

The last and perhaps most important criterion we will explore in this essay, critical to the

success of a nonviolent social movement, is the type of government that must be challenged

and/or confronted by those engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience. Mohandas K. Gandhi and

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. both led successful nonviolent struggles against two very powerful

nations during their respective revolution; this was perhaps made possible because the

governments of both Great Britain and the United States of America at the time both espoused

various democratic ideals.

In this section of the essay I will provide a basic definition of democracy exploring the

etymology of the word, three types of democracy (direct, representative, and liberal), and the key

elements of a democracy as identified by Ellen Grigsby which include participation, pluralism,

developmentalism, protection, and performance (Grigsby 324p. 169). Secondly, I will provide a

brief background of Great Britain and America’s existing form of government. And lastly, I will

discuss why a democratic government as the oppressive power structure is critical to the success

of a nonviolent social movement. We will examine the citizen’s right to act, speak, and

assemble freely and the citizen’s right to be active in and reform government policy and

legislation.

The word democracy literally means rule by the people; it is a combination of two

ancient Greek words, demos meaning “people” and kratein meaning “to rule” (Grigsby p. 169).

A democratic form of government is unique in that it is essentially a government made by the

people for the people. In this sense, all citizens governed by a democracy have the power to

participate in their government and be an active force in creating and or changing various

governmental policies and laws. Ellen Grigsby, author of Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to

Political Science states that:

When the demos and the process of ruling are brought together through (1) elections in whichthe people are free to select and reject government officials; (2) ongoing access to the governmentby the people between elections; and (3) the enactment of laws and policies reflecting the interestsof a self-governing people, then it is clear that the people and the government are connected interms of inputs (i.e., the demos shape and influence the government) and outputs (laws and

policies coming out of government and affecting the lives of the demos reflect the interest of thedemos as defined by the demos). It is clear in such cases that the government is democratic. (Grigsby p. 169)

Historically, there have been several different types of democratic forms of government

including: direct (pure) democracy, representative democracy, and liberal democracy. Direct

democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a political system in which the people of the

state vote on government decisions especially pertaining to the approval and/or rejection of

various laws. Such a democratic form of government is called direct because “the power of

making [legislative and governing] decisions is exercised by the people directly, without

intermediaries or representatives” ("Democracy." p. 1). This form of democracy has typically

been rare and has existed usually in smaller communities such as city-states ("Democracy." 9. 1).

Representative democracy differs from direct democracy in that “the people do not vote

on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or

assembly” ("Democracy." p. 2). This form of democracy has become more widespread

throughout the 20th Century, and in fact the majority of the world’s population now live under

representative democratic regimes ("Democracy." p. 2). In the case of liberal democracy, it is

basically “a type of representative democracy where the power of the government is limited by

the rule of law and separation of powers, while the people are guaranteed certain inviolable

liberties and rights, such as freedom of speech” ("Democracy." p. 2). Typically this form of

democracy enables the citizenry to have basic constitutional rights. An example of a liberal

democracy is the United States of America.

Although the three types of democracies mentioned above are different in some ways,

Ellen Grigsby contends that all democratic forms of government usually consist of five

components; these include: participation, pluralism, developmentalism, protection, and

performance (Grigsby p. 169). “Participating in the selection of government officials,” Grigsby

contends,

Is one of the most obvious ways in which people can be connected to their government. Indeed, the existence of elections in which all eligible citizens are free to vote, campaign, debate, and otherwise participate is a basic element of democratic politics.

Pluralism refers to the multiplicity, diversity, or plurality of opinions and groups free to express themselves within a political system. Pluralism’s relationship to democracy is crucial: Democracyrequires that all the people – with all their differing ideologies, opinions, values, and so forth – be free to connect to government. Ideally, pluralism requires that no single group have a special claimto be heard before any others, or to silence any others. In this sense, democracy affirms that allgroups/opinions in a society must be free to compete for attention and for followers. If some groupsare suppressed, which would be indicated by lower levels of pluralism, then the level of democracydrops.

Developmentalism refers to the extent to which the people develop their human potential sufficientlyto possess an awareness of their actions, including civic actions such as voting.

Protection […] refers to democracy’s commitment to limiting governmental power so that governments do not become tyrannical. For democracy to be authentic, the demos must beprotected from excessive governmental regulation and control inconsistent with the democratic principle of self-government. Democracies have many options for limiting governmental power.Governmental power may be restrained through constitutional protections of freedom of speech, press, association, and religion; through checks and balances that protect against the possibility of one branch of government becoming all-powerful; and through fixed terms of office for politicians, which protect against the rise of a governing elite that could proclaim itself rulersfor life.

Performance […] if a government is democratic – if it is reflecting and serving the demos – then the demos should be living as well as possible given the resources available within the territoryof the state. If no, one might ask whether the government is performing in a democratic (demos-oriented) manner […] levels of democracy, in this sense, might be measured by examining the quality of life of the people, insofar as the quality of life is influenced by governmental laws andpolicies. Political scientists who study countries from the standpoint of performance democracymight examine such factors as income levels, literacy rates, life expectancy, access to medicalcare, vulnerability to crime, and other quality-of-life issues. High rates of poverty in a country rich in both natural resources and the technology needed to develop them, for example, mightraise the question of whether government policies reflect and serve the interest of a self-governing people. (Grigsby p. 171)

These five components of a democracy provide a greater understanding of why a democratic

form of government is perhaps the only government conducive for allowing a nonviolent social

movement to be not only possible but successful as well. First, however let us examine the

government structure of both Great Britain and the United States of America to gain insight on

the type of government Gandhi and King were overtly confronting.

The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy which is a system of government also

known as the Westminster system; however, as a Parliamentary Democracy the ultimate authority

within the government is Parliament and not the Prime Minister or the Monarch ("Politics of the

United Kingdom." P. 1). The head of state and the one who is theoretically the source of

executive, judicial, and legislative power in the United Kingdom is the monarch. Currently the

monarch of the UK is Queen Elizabeth II; however, “sovereignty in the UK no longer rests with

the monarch since the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which established the principle of

Parliamentary Sovereignty” ("Politics of the United Kingdom." P. 2).

Traditionally the monarch appoints a Prime Minister who is the “head of government.”

The Prime Minister then selects other ministers who make up the House of Commons and act as

political heads of various Government Departments ("Politics of the United Kingdom." P.2).

The most important appointed ministers are identified as Secretaries of State and hold positions

including: The Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance); The Foreign Secretary (international

affairs), and The Lord Chancellor (the legal system) to name a few.

Parliament is the legislative governing body and core political system in the United

Kingdom. It has existed for over 900 years and consists of both the House of Commons and the

House of Lords ("Politics of the United Kingdom." P. 3). Of the two Parliamentary branches, the

House of Commons is perhaps the most important. It is where most of the new government laws

originate and where the leaders are appointed through an elected body every five years at a

general election. The party that has a majority vote in the House of Commons becomes the party

of government and its leader becomes the Prime Minister ("Politics of the United Kingdom." p.

4). The current Prime Minister and leader of the British Labour Party is Tony Blair. Blair’s

Labour Party won by majority vote in the May 1997 general election (Grigsby p. 256).

The House of Lords currently “acts to review legislation formed by the House of

Commons, with the power to propose amendments, and exercises a suspensive veto. This allows

it to delay legislation it does not approve of for twelve months. [Furthermore] the House of

Lords is currently […] the final court of appeal within the United Kingdom” ("Politics of the

United Kingdom." p. 4). In practice, only a small subset of the House of Lords hears judicial

cases.

The federal government of the United States of America, established by the U.S.

Constitution in 1789, has three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. These three

branches of government operate through a system of “checks and balances” and has some

“authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of

its authority […] regulated by one or two other branches ("Federal government of the United

States." p. 1).

The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. TheHouse of Representatives consists of 435 members, each of whom represents a congressional district and serves for a two-year term. House seats are apportioned among the states by population; in contrast, each state has two Senators, regardless of population [and] there are a total of 100 Senators […] who serve six-year terms.

The Executive branch consists of the President of the United States and his delegates. The President is both head of state and head of government, as well as the commander-in-chief of the military, and the chief diplomat. The President, according to the Constitution, must “takecare that the laws be faithfully executed.” […] Within the executive branch itself, the Presidenthas broad constitutional powers to manage national affairs and the workings of the federalgovernment, and may issue executive orders to affect internal policies.

The Judicial branch: The highest court is the Supreme Court, which currently consists of ninejustices. The court deals with matters pertaining to the Federal Government, disputes betweenStates, and interpretation of the United States Constitution, and can declare legislation or executive action made at any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the lawand creating precedent for future law and decisions. ("Federal government of the United States." p. 1-4).

These three branches ensure that there is a balance of power within the federal government to

prevent the emergence of a totalitarian regime or an anti-democratic dictatorship. Both the

government of the United Kingdom and the United States of America are structured in such a

way so as to allow for the active participation of its governed citizens; in short, the citizens have

certain rights which enable them to influence and affect the enactment of certain government

policies and laws.

There are three reasons why a democratic form of government is critical to the success of

a nonviolent social movement; these include: (1) the citizen’s right to challenge and protest

government policies and laws; (2) his or her right to create internal inconsistency within the

community through massive demonstrations, boycotts, etc.; and (3) have the capacity to arouse

the conscience of fellow citizens and those who are in positions of power and influence within

the government. At this point in the essay it is important to note that Gandhi was struggling

against a government that did not recognize Indians as citizens guaranteed the same basic rights

as the British, rather they were regarded as colonial subjects of the British Raj. This is quite

different from Dr. King’s struggle in which the vast majority of Civil Rights workers and

leaders, including King, were American citizens.

One way in which the United States sought to honor protective democracy was through

the establishment of the Bill of Rights which proclaims that “U.S. citizens are protected from a

wide array of governmental intrusions into their lives, ranging from government control of the

press to government confiscation of private property without fair compensation” (Grigsby p.

182). For the purpose of this essay, we shall focus on the first Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution which grants the citizen the right of freedom of speech, press, religion, and

association. Although Great Britain does not have a document known as the British

Constitution, “supporters of the British system assert that […] it is customary in Great Britain to

respect freedom of speech and press, these freedoms are assured of continued protection as new

laws and policies are enacted by the country’s legislature” (Grigsby 324p. 183). In short, both

the United Kingdom and the United States of America grant its citizens certain basic rights that

enable the citizen to openly challenge and protest government policies and laws.

The Birmingham Campaign greatly exemplified the power and efficacy of these rights exercised

by nonviolent demonstrators with considerable success.

Another point to be addressed is that nonviolent social movements tend to be internally

disruptive to the government which ultimately pressures the government into action of some sort.

This was skillfully demonstrated by Gandhi and King when, in addition to leading dramatic

nonviolent demonstrations, they would urge their followers to boycott various goods and thereby

disrupt the economy of the targeted community. By leading massive demonstrations and

encouraging their followers to participate in what King termed “economic withdraw,” these men

were able to force the political leadership to the negotiating table. Typically, it is through such

forced negotiation that laws, policies, and ultimately conditions are changed. Clearly, this would

not be a possibility in a totalitarian regime or some sort of anti-democratic dictatorship.

Finally, nonviolent direct action is geared, not toward defeating or overthrowing the

government but rather, toward appealing to the conscience of fellow citizens and the leaders in

positions of power and influence. Devotees of militant nonviolence seek to courageously expose

the existing injustice and oppressive conditions, submitting themselves willingly to the penalty

of the law. By doing this the citizen is indicating that he or she has a regard for the law but only

for laws that are just. In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King, Jr.

distinguishes between just and unjust laws:

One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just and there are unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.”

Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just orunjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of Godan unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms ofSaint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural

law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personalityis unjust.

An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. Thisis difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels aminority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal […] an unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because they did not have the unhampered right to vote.

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willinglyaccepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over itsinjustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law. (Washington p. 89-90)

Due to the citizen’s right to challenge and protest government policies and laws, to create

internal inconsistency within the community through massive demonstrations and boycotts, and

have the capacity to arouse the conscience of fellow citizens and those who are in positions of

power and influence within the government, democratic forms of government are more

conducive for allowing nonviolent social movements to be successful.

Conclusion

By conducting an historical comparative analysis of Gandhi’s Salt March of 1930 and the

Birmingham Campaign of 1963, we have thoroughly explored the “base criteria” that were

conjointly necessary for these two nonviolent social movements to be successful. We explored

not only how planned, organized, and strategic direct action was employed in Gandhi and King’s

respective movements, but we also discovered why this criterion was critical to the success of

both movements. Furthermore, we examined the importance of the type of leadership in a

nonviolent movement which was identified as charismatic. We discussed two types of

charismatic leadership, supernatural and secular and saw how Gandhi and King embodied both

types of charisma. We then discovered why charismatic leadership is critical to the success of a

nonviolent social movement by looking at the leader behavior model which includes role

modeling and frame alignment. Lastly, we explored why the type of government, which I have

identified as democratic, was critical to the success of the two nonviolent social movements

presented. We discovered that basic practices fundamental to democratic forms of government,

such as the citizen’s right to act, speak, and assemble freely and the citizen’s right to be active in

and reform government policy and legislation, were more conducive for allowing nonviolent

social movements to be successful.

In conclusion, I assert that if the “base criteria” of planned, organized, and strategic direct

action, the type of leadership (charismatic), and the type of government (democratic) were

conjointly necessary for the Salt March of 1930 and the Birmingham Campaign of 1963 to be

successful, then such criteria must be conjointly necessary for any nonviolent social movement to

be successful. In short:

If P, then QP---------------Q

A1) the “base criteria” (P) were conjointly present in Gandhi’s Salt March of 1930 and consequently the movement was successful (Q).

A2) the “base criteria” (P) were conjointly present in The Birmingham Campaign of 1963 and consequently the movement was successful (Q).

Works Cited

Bass, Jonathan S. Blessed are the Peacemakers: Martin Luther King, Jr., Eight White Religious Leaders, and the "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001.

Chadha, Yogesh. Gandhi: A Life. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.

Dalton, Dennis. Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

"Democracy." Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 31 May 2006 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. . Wikipedia. 31 May 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>.

Eliade, Mircea, and Charles J. Adams. The Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 5. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

"Federal government of the United States." Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 30 May 2006 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. . Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 30 May 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Government>.

Gandhi, Mohandas K. An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Boston: Beacon Press, 1957.

Garrow, David J. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., 1986a.

---. Birmingham, Alabama, 1956-1963: The Black Struggle for Civil Rights. New York: Carlson Publishing Inc., 1989b.

Grigsby, Ellen. Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Canada: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999.

Lewy, Guenter. Religion and Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

McWhorter, Diane. Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

Phillips, Donald T. Martin Luther King, Jr., on Leadership: Inspiration and Wisdom for Challenging Times. New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1998.

"Politics of the United Kingdom." Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 30 May 2006 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. . Wikipedia. 31 May 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_government>.

Ruhe, Peter. Gandhi. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2001.

Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur. "The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory." Organization Science 4.4 (1993): July 14, 2005. JSTOR <http://www.jstor.org/>.

Spencer, Martin E. "What is Charisma?" The British Journal of Sociology 24 (1973): 341-54. JSTOR. July 14, 2005.

Washington, James M., ed. I have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.

Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Trans. Ephraim Fischoff, et al. Ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Vol. 1. New York: Bedminster Press Incorporated, 1968.

Weber, Thomas. "Gandhian Nonviolence and the Salt March." Social Alternatives 21.2 (2002): 46-51.

---. On the Salt March: The Historiography of Gandhi's March to Dandi. India: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997.