Why self-discipline can be a form of political power in non-violent political action

Patty Kwok

Stefan Müller from Germany, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Many people regard non-violent political actions as naïve. On the one hand, critics

argue that non-violence can be slow, ineffective, and unable to bring about real change. On

the other hand, they believe it is unrealistic for peaceful protesters to stick to non-violent

principles no matter what, especially when there is a huge power imbalance between

ordinary people and an oppressive government. They argue that this strict commitment to

moral rules requires protesters to constantly control their emotions and actions. As a result,

protests may become less spontaneous, making it harder for people to respond creatively

and forcefully to changing situations. In their view, this can weaken a movement's ability to

achieve meaningful political change.

In this short article, I want to challenge some of the assumptions underpinning

these views. I point out that the power of self-discipline in non-violent political actions is

both morally and tactically strong in the face of repression. Not only does it help

protestors regain their inner self-confidence by resisting external manipulation from the

regime, but the collective display of self-disciplined individuals also encourages

outsiders to rethink their political positions.

Generally speaking, self-discipline is the ability to master oneself, even though

the surrounding environment encourages you to act in ways that deviate significantly

from the non-violent ethos. One path of self-discipline focuses on the process of

reaching these demands. In other words, it is a moral quality or virtue that helps sustain

the pursuit of intimately related demands regardless of the outcome. It is true that nonviolence does not rely on physical force, but that doesn’t mean it is a moral principle

that blindly demands unquestioning compliance. Instead, it requires consistent and very

clear questioning so that it helps protestors to build and protect their sense of self by

effectively resisting outside pressure during political action. As Gandhi states, ‘The

satyagrahi general has to obey his inner voice, for over and above the situation outside,

he examines himself constantly and listens to the dictates of the inner self’ (Gandhi,

2001, p.98).

In any political movement, the government uses many political messages and

symbols to shape how people think. These messages influence how protestors see their

own actions and how the public views the movement. Because protestors face

uncertainty and risk, it is easy for their thinking to be affected by this kind of

messaging. Governments often use language designed to weaken protestors’

confidence. Phrases like ‘These people don’t represent the public’, ‘They are young and

easily influenced’ or ‘A small extremist group is causing trouble’ aim to isolate and

discredit those who are resisting. These narratives spread through society and can even

affect the protestors themselves which makes protestors doubt their own experiences

and judgement, though the injustice is obvious. Gaslighting as such often shows up in

comments like ‘That’s not going to work’ or ‘Do you really think you can achieve

anything’. Such comments undermine the confidence of the protestors.

Some activists argue that violence can cut through the negative political

messages or symbols. They think that using force can free protestors from the regime’s

psychological control and restore their sense of self-confidence. Even Nelson Mandela

(1918- 2013), who is often remembered as a veteran of non-violence, supported certain

acts of sabotage as a way to help people regain confidence after years of being made to

feel powerless under apartheid. Nevertheless, using violence does not really eradicate

the symbols. On the one hand, violence is limited by what people actually have such as

their bodies, their energy, and whatever tools they can get. On the other hand, the

government can escalate its negative rhetoric commensurate with violence to weaken

the confidence of protesters. If we follow the idea that the more powerless the

government makes us feel, the more we need something dramatic to balance that

powerlessness, then the whole movement just keeps getting pushed by escalating

brinksmanship until the government can claim the legitimacy to invoke drastic power of

control. The more the government puts you down, the more violence you feel you need

to fight back. In the end, not only violence is escalated, your actions are still controlled

by what the government says.

Instead of helping people break free from those symbols, violence can trap them

in a cycle where they are always subject to the government’s attempts to define their

worth. This does not strengthen capacity, but rather renders activism merely reactive,

yielding agency to the government. Thus, a central virtue of disciplined non-violence is

that it maintains agency, and thereby does not cede the narrative to the government. In

the end, if the government brutally represses the movement, it represses non-violence,

not violence, further exhibiting its illegitimacy.

Self-discipline helps to break this cycle by teaching people to detach themselves

from the immediate goal and focus instead on the process of action. This does not mean

giving up the political goal. It means not letting the goal take over your mind in a way

that makes the government’s messages feel even stronger. When people focus too

much on the end result, the government’s words and labels hit harder. They start to feel

like they must prove themselves against those messages, which makes them react to

the symbols and messages instead of staying steady. Self-discipline helps stop this from

happening by shifting attention from the goal to the process, such as how you act, how

you stay calm, and how you stay clear. It creates a space for the protestors to conduct

self-reflection that allows them to get rid of the external interference. When you focus

on the process, the outside environment does not control your emotions or your actions

as much. You can keep doing the work without being pushed around by what the

government says about you. Because you start to trust your own actions instead of

reacting to the labels others put on you, this steady way of acting helps rebuild your

self-confidence and hence perseverance.

A good example of this is Gandhi’s use of the spinning wheel. It is a simple

hand-operated device used to spin cotton into yarn, so that India did not need to rely on

imported British textiles. While many people see it only as a way to delegitimize British

rule by promoting self-reliance, it also had another purpose which was to slow people

down. As Gandhi wrote in Young India, the spinning wheel ‘is a standing rebuke against

the modern mad rush for adding material comfort on comfort and making life so

complicated as to make one doubly unfit for knowing oneself and one’s God’ (Gandhi,

1927). The repetitive, steady motion of spinning forced protestors to calm their minds,

concentrate on the present moment, and ground themselves in the process rather than

the political goal alone. In doing so, it helped them cultivate the self-discipline needed

to resist anger, panic, or the urge to respond immediately to the government’s pressure.

Still, because people who are not involved in the movement are also shaped by

political symbols, they are easily influenced by the government’s rhetoric. Unlike

protestors, they do not practice self-discipline or detachment, so they naturally repeat the

official narrative. Gradually, this repetition solidifies into their own political stance,

making their views almost indistinguishable from the government’s. Therefore, when

non-violent action disrupts their daily lives, they often blame protestors rather than

recognizing how their opinions have been shaped and how this blinds them to the

injustice at hand. This problem becomes even more powerful when the government not

only spreads messages but also deploys police to induce violence within non-violent

groups. Once any chaos occurs, these people tend to assume the government was right

all along.

Violence from the protestors does little to change the minds of people outside

the movement. It may create fear and force temporary compliance, but it does not

persuade. Instead, it adds even more coercion and distress to people’s daily lives,

causing them to feel disgusted or threatened by the violence. This disgust quickly

becomes a moral judgment. That said, because violence is ‘bad’, whatever the

protestors are striving for must also be ‘bad’. Their reasoning closes off, leaving no

space to consider the protestors’ motives or the injustices driving the conflict. This

response pushes them further toward believing the government’s narrative is correct and

reinforces the view that protestors are the source of chaos. As this loop deepens, they

become even less able to understand why some protestors might turn to violence, and

the injustices at hand remain entirely unexamined. Violence both fails to reshape public

interpretation and it strengthens the government’s message and blocks any possibility

for deeper reflection.

Yet, another path of self-discipline solves this problem. This path of self-discipline

is often praised by success coaches; they view self-discipline as a goal-oriented

strategy to reach personal and professional success. This kind of self-discipline, if

applied in politics, becomes a central tactic in achieving different political demands.

Differing from violence, self-discipline strategically makes the public rethink their

political views because it creates a kind of shock that breaks their expectations. When

protestors act with strong self-discipline, they show something completely different from

what people were told to expect. Instead of chaos, people see calmness. Instead of

anger, they see clarity. Instead of blind conformity, they see individuals who understand

why they are resisting and who stay committed without being pushed around. This

creates a sharp contrast with the government’s message. When the public sees this

contrast, many begin to ask themselves: ‘If these people are so calm and self-controlled,

why would they still choose to protest? What is really happening?’ This question is

powerful. It makes people think more deeply and stops them from simply repeating the

government’s narrative. The strategy of fasting is a good example. If carefully used, fasting is neither a coercion to change people’s minds, nor a passive action of self-suffering.

Instead, it appeals to people’s reflection. In analyzing Gandhi’s political

philosophy of fasting, Chakravarty argues, ‘even while repudiating his method and its

efficacy… people would begin to feel uncomfortable; the grocer’s boy, the rick-shaw-puller,

the office clerk, the school and college students would scan the news columns

early in the morning and listen to the radio throughout the day and feel more and more

personally involved in the situation’ (as cited in Parekh, 1989, p.162). Furthermore,

when someone fasts, it forces others to wonder: ‘Why would someone do this to

themselves? What problem is so serious that a person is willing to suffer for it?’ This

unexpected action makes people talk, think, and reconsider their assumptions.

In these ways, self-discipline is not about holding yourself back for no reason. It

is a way to break through government manipulation. It helps protestors control the

message, instead of letting the government define who they are. And because self-discipline

creates this unexpected contrast, it makes the protest more effective by

opening people’s eyes and encourages them to rethink their long-held political beliefs.

Self-discipline is not a weakness in non-violent action. It is actually a kind of

strength. When protestors stay calm, clear, and steady, they stop the government from

controlling how they think or act. This helps them regain confidence and avoid being

pushed into reacting out of anger or fear. At the same time, self-discipline sends a

powerful message to the public. When people see protestors who are peaceful and

focused, even under pressure, they start to question what the government has been

saying about them. This unexpected behaviour makes the public think more deeply

about what is really happening and why people are protesting in the first place. In this

way, self-discipline not only protects protestors from manipulation, but also helps change

how society understands the conflict.

References:

Gandhi, M. K. (2001). Non-violent resistance. Courier Corporation.

Parekh, B. (1989). Gandhi's political philosophy: A critical examination.