PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE MORALITY OF STRIKES AND NON-VIOLENCE AS CHANNELS OF SOCIAL CHANGE

Abstract

From its classical roots (the Gita, Socrates, and Christ), the world has experienced many apostles of the doctrine of non-violence—effectively interpreting and using it as a social weapon for transforming society and moderating social policy formulation. For example, the efficacy of non-violence was demonstrated in India by the practical dimension (though this is less validly claimed about Africa) given to the Gita by Gandhi, in the United States by both David Thoreau and the ebullient, resilient Nobel laureate, Luther King Jnr.; they perfected and variously adapted the principles of non-violence (organized matches, strikes, sit-ins, dissenting rallies, demonstrations, etc.) to the redress perceived or real socio-political infamies of their respective era. In some way, nevertheless, modern Africa has witnessed no known more application of non-violence than in Nigeria where strike action has become the single overriding and common industrial weapon for seeking redress such that the practice seem to be losing legitimacy, respect and efficacy. And newer questions have arisen as to the moral basis of strikes. Moreover, what is the relationship or philosophical nexus between the trio of strikes, civil disobedience, and non-violence? Accordingly, by looking into extant literature on the meanings and perspectives on strikes, civil disobedience, and non-violence, this article explains, reviews, and evaluates the meaning and presuppositions of strikes and the general principle of non-violence in order to determine their moral basis, applicability, general suitability with a view to advocating or rejecting same as means of social change.