Martin Luther king Jr. Non-violence struggle as analysed in his letter from a Birmingham Jail.

      We have divided our work into three main parts those are introduction, main body and conclusion. Whereby in introduction we have tried to define different key terms found in the question together with a brief biography of Martin Luther King Jr. and why he wrote a letter while in a jail. In the main body we tried to discuss steps suggested by Martin Luther King Jr. towards non-violence struggle together with the reasons why he decided to use non-violent struggle towards injustice. And in conclusion we tried to give our views towards the use of non-violence struggle against different injustice.

      Non-violence struggle have been differently defined from different sources for example according to free online dictionary, non-violence struggle referred as the doctrine , policy or practice of rejecting violence in favour of peaceful tactics as a means of gain political objectives.

Under this king of struggle political objectives are achieved without bloodshed. Also it can be referred as methods of bringing about change do not involve hurting people or causing damage (Collins English dictionary).

      Generally, non-violence struggle is the kind of struggle which involves doctrine, policy or practice of rejecting violence in favour of gain social political and economic objectives without hurting people or causing damage. Having itemized the term non-violence struggle, the next part of our work is to know the biography of Martin Luther King Jr.

     Martin Luther King Jr. was born in Atlanta Georgia, on 15 January, 1929 as Michael Luther King Jr. later on his name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. after being baptized. King became a civil rights activist in his carrier. Then in 1955, he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott and in 1957, he helped to find the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (S.C.L.C) and serving as it’s the first president. In 1951, King began doctoral studies in systematic theology at Boston University School of Theology.

      On 12 April 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. arrested for violating Alabama’s law against mass public demonstrations. One day after being arrested, king received the letter which was the critical of King’s activities. The letter titled “ An Appeal for law and order and common sense’’

written by eight white clergymen like Carpenter, Murray, Harmon, Hardish, Stalling, Ramage, Durick and Grafman. In response to the letter written by such eight white clergymen, king wrote a letter while in jail and the letter became famously known as the “Letter from Birmingham jail’’.

       According to the question, now we are going to discuss different steps suggested by Martin Luther King Jr. in his letter towards non-violence struggle as well as why he decided to use non violent struggle.

      The first step is collection of facts to determine whether injustice exists; collection of facts is an activity of gathering concrete information used as basic for further interpretation. In the whole process of collecting facts, Martin Luther King Jr. found that in Birmingham there were racial injustice, Negros unjust treatment in the courts and unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches than in any other city in the nation. For instance from his letter Martin Luther King, on the case of injustice the Negros or blacks were not allowed to make eye contact with white women. Thus in any country which facing problems or misunderstandings there must be the collection of facts in order to address the problems prevailing.

      The second step is negotiation; this step comes after the collection of facts whereby it involves the process of achieving the agreement through discussion. This done by oppressed leaders with oppressors in which the oppressed leaders demand their rights or to solve those problems facing oppressed people. After collecting facts he discovered that in Birmingham city black people were facing different problems in case of racial, court treatment and others, he decided to negotiate with city fathers but they refused to engage in a good faith negotiation, so in any non -violence struggle, negotiation comes after collection the facts and determine injustice exist or not, and if unjust exists, negotiation is a likely step to be used first before undergoing the further steps.

       The third step is self-purification. In general it is a preparation step for direct actions. This comes after negotiation whether failed to take place or after unfulfilled promises to oppressed groups from oppressors. It involves the provisions of training on direct action struggle as well as to schedule different direct action programmes. With references to the letter Martin Luther King jr. tried to schedule different direct programme, example one for the Easter and Christmas but those were postponed due to different reasons. This step is very important on conducting a non violent struggle because people are to be prepared mentally and physically on how to conduct a safe direct action which can avoid unnecessary violent mass Killing or bloodshed to both oppressed and oppressors.

       The last step in direct action according to Martin Luther King Jr, direct action refers to non violence struggle towards injustice whereby people would present their very bodies mentally and physically as laying means of their case before the conscience of their local and national community. In this step, different direct actions campaign such as marching, civil disobedience, boy cotting as well as sit- in are likely to be used, whereby sit-in is the non-violence tactic in which people sit down at the site of injustice and refuse to move far for a time until their goals are achieved. Marches is a tactic in which a large number of people walk in a group to the place significance to protect injustice. Civil disobedience is the act of openly disobeying unjust, immoral or unconstitutional laws whereby Martin Luther King Jr. in his letter divided the laws into just and unjust and he emphasized to obey just laws and ignoring unjust laws because they are out of moral values and the laws of god whereby he squares his ideas with St. Augustine who argue that “ unjust laws are not laws at all” but the whole purpose of direct action is to create a situation so that it will open the door to negotiation, this step is the best one to be used anywhere if negotiation failed to take place because it arouse attention to oppressors towards negotiation again as Martin says in his letter “ an oppressed cannot be remained oppressed forever’’, as well as “a freedom cannot be voluntarily given by oppressor but it must be demanded by oppressed themselves’’ thus why direct action is necessary to fight against injustice.

       Apart from discussing different steps of non violent struggle, now the following are the reasons why Martin Luther King Jr. preferred to use non violence struggle towards injustice.

      Non-violence is the way of the strong non-violence is not for the cowardly, the weak, the passive, the apathetic or the fearful. “Non-violence resistance does resist’’ he wrote “It is not a method of stagnant passively. While the non violent resistor is passive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The method is passive physically, but strong active spiritually. It is not passive non resistance to evil; it is active non-violence resistance to evil.

      The goal of non-violence is redemption and reconciliation. Non-violence does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win friendship and understanding. The aftermath of non-violence is the creation of the beloved community while the aftermath of the violence is tragic bitterness thus why in non-violence struggle it is better than violence struggle against injustice because it maintains friendship between oppressors and oppressed.

     Non-violence seeks to defeat evils, not people. Non-violence is directed “against forces of evil rather than against persons who happens to be doing the evil. It is the evil that the non-violent resistor seek to defeat, not the persons victimized by evil’’ referring to his letter  Martin Luther King Jr. based much on fighting against evils done by the oppressors like racial segregation, unjust treatment of Negros in the courts and bombing of negro homes and churches in Birmingham.

      Non- violence choose love instead of hate, Martin Luther King Jr. preferred non-violence struggle in order to avoid enemity between the oppressed and the oppressors so as to maintain love between themselves, while they are in conflicting situation. To him to hate oppressors when fighting against injustice was a sin, therefore when fighting against injustice we are required not to hate our enemies rather we are required to promote friendship and love so as to make easy negotiation between two sides.

   In summing up, although there are some scholars like Lionel Lokos and and Frank Meyer criticized Martin Luther’s non-violence struggle, but as the group we regard non-violence struggle as the best way for achieving both political, economic and social objectives without hurting people or causing damages.

REFERENCES

Bass J.S (2001). Blessed are the peacemakers, Martin Luther King Jr. Eight white Religious                                                   leaders and the Letter from Birmingham jail’’ Louisiana: Louisiana state University press.

       Oates S.B (1982). Let the Trumpet sound: The life of Martin Luther King Jr. New York: Harper & Row

       Rhetoric & Public Affairs, volume 7, number 1, spring, pp. 1-22 (Article) published by Michigan state university press.

Comparison and differences of Nkrumah and Nyerere’s thoughts on African socialism.

 

The term socialism has no single definition as have been defined by various scholars as follows;

               According to Rappoport (1928) defined socialism based on the recognition of interests common to all citizens in order to promote a free individual in a free society.[1]

                According to Quinn (1980) socialism is apolitical term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually and relations are governed by political hierarchy.

                 Generally socialism can be defined as an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries, banks, and insurance. Under capitalism these giant enterprises dominate the economy but are privately owned and operated for purpose of generating wealth for their owners.

                   African socialism is believed in sharing economic resources in a traditional African way as distinct from classical socialism.[2]Many African politicians of the 1950s and 1960s professed their support for African socialism, although definitions and interpretation of this term varied considerably. This is because African socialism has not been the production of one single thinker.

                     African socialism was a form of social system rooted in African soil and culture. Traditional African societies governed by socialist’s rules. These was an attempts made by African thinkers to recapture traditional African values to services modern African societies as an indication that traditional African societies had something to teach in the modern world so as to uphold African culture and values.[3]African socialist’s thinkers are like Nyerere, Nkrumah, Kaunda, and Senghor. All African thinkers were similar in some aspects although in some cases was differed. Before looking in the comparison and differences of these thinkers thought let us first see their biography.

                      Julius k. Nyerere; was born at Butiama, a village near Musoma on the shores of lake Victoria in 1922 he was the son of chief Nyerere Burito of the Wazanaki tribe he attended primary education in Musoma and secondary school at Tabora. He spends two years at Makerere College and graduated as Master of Arts in 1952 from Edinburg University (Scotland). While in Britain Nyerere joined a socialists club known as Fabians. Fabians socialists whose political thinking was based on the ideas of utopian socialists was to influences  Nyerere’s early political thinking these utopian socialists who influenced Nyerere were like St.Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.  He later on served as a teacher   at St. Francis Pugu and become one of founders of Tanganyika National Union (TANU) in 1954. Nyerere’s construction on African socialism based on the concept of “UJAMAA”; to him Ujamaa means family hood (African extended family) meaning that all individuals in the state as members of the same family. Nyerere dead in 1999.

                  Kwame Nkrumah; was born at Nkroful, gold coast (today Ghana) in1909. Lincoln University graduated in Bachelor of Arts in 1939 at university of Pennsylvania in United States of America, also graduated in bachelor of sacred theology and masters in philosophy in 1945. Nkrumah taught philosophy and Negro history from 1935-1945.  During his stay in America, racism and the poor living standards of the black Americans were also to influence his political thinking.  Nkrumah’s thought on the construction of African socialism was based on his philosophy of consciencism.  To him consciencism  was as a map in an intellectual terms of disposition of forces which enable African society to digest western, Islamic and euro-Christian elements in Africa and develop them  in such way that they fit into African personality. To him African culture alone cannot construct a viable ideology of modern African states. The following are the comparisons and differences of Nkrumah and Nyerere’s thoughts on African socialism, starting with comparison.

                  Both Nkrumah and Nyerere championed the single party system in building strong foundation of socialism in Ghana and Tanzania respectively. Through the monoparty system the two nationalists in Africa ensured the existence of strong unity solidarity among their people purposely for social, political, economic and cultural development in their states and Africa in general.[4]

                Both agree on the common features of socialists a state which is common ownership of means of production, distribution and exchange. Production is for use and not for profit according to Nkrumah also Nyerere in Arusha declaration his major point was the major means of production and exchange are under the control of peasants and workers.[5]

                Both Nkrumah and Nyerere held a platonic notion that the purpose of the state is to create a proper environment for blossoming of desired ethical condition,  this means the aims of socialism was to reconstruct African societies in the manner that humanism of traditional African life reasserts itself in a modern technical community.[6]

                 Both opposed non-secular system in building socialists states in which the governance systems had to be separated from the religious affairs so as to promote strong unity and solidarity among the people thus why Nyerere said Tanzania has got no religion but her people have their own religions. Nkrumah on the other hand separated religion from the state affairs.

                 Both believed on the egalitarian system in which they ignored classes that may perpetuate exploitation among members in the socialists’ states. To them public ownership and central planned economy was much better for the development of newly independent African countries.

                   Both Nyerere and Nkrumah in their socialists’ thoughts believed that self determination in political, economic, ideological and cultural aspects of life is where African all over the world can solve their problems or difficulties and building strong foundation of socialism in their respective countries.

The following are the contrasts of Nyerere and Nkrumah’s thought on African socialism.

                  Nyerere’s thought in socialism was based on the concept of Ujamaa while Nkrumah’s thought on African socialism was based on the concept of conscienscism. To Nyerere Ujamaa means family hood (African extended family) meaning that all individual in the state as members of the same family while conscienscism was as map in an intellectual term of disposition of forces which enable African societies to digest external element and develop them to fit into to African personality.

                   Nkrumah and Nyerere differed on the format of production which could best encourage the renaissances of these values while allowing for some degree of technologically derived change. Nyerere argue that the institution which first bred this value must be recreated. In effect he felt that changes in the social organization of production could be reversed through will and leadership but Nkrumah on the other hand from the perspective of dialectical materialism believed that change could be encouraged and channeled in a direction but never reversed. For Nkrumah only proper changes were real.[7]

                  Nyerere argued that African culture alone can construct a viable ideology of modern state while Nkrumah argues that African cultural alone cannot construct a viable ideology of modern African state, for him a viable ideology for the development for African should be based on synthesis of traditional and western, Islamic and euro-Christian elements of African states.

                   Generally both thinkers (Nyerere and Nkrumah) developed political ideas which had profound impact on their countries and African in general. The political ideas and contributions of Nkrumah and Nyerere are significant and remain very valid for today’s Africa because Nkrumah developed the notion of “neo colonialism” which outlined the features of continued exploitation of former colonies after formal political independence was achieved and Nyerere advanced the ideology of self reliance as a necessary component of socialism that is both were steadfast in their condemnation of exploitation and oppression. Finally both did not succeed in putting their political ideas into to practice like their dream of a united Africa remains unfulfilled.

                                            REFFERENCES

Fenner, B. (1963) African socialism. The Bodley head, London

John, S, S. (2002) “Julius Nyerere and the theory and practice of (Un) democratic socialism in  Africa” The legacies of   

                                 Julius Nyerere. Africa world press

Peter, T, P. (1970)   Kwame Nkrumah. New York: the Africane Publishing corporation.

---

[1] C, Rappoport. (1928) what is Socialism. P-4

[2]F, Brockway. (1963) African Socialism. P-25  

[3] Friedland and Rosberg Jr. (1964) African Socialism. P-3

[4] S.S.John(2002) Julius Nyerere and the theory and practice of (Un) Democratic Socialism in Africa

[5] S.S.John(2002) Julius Nyerere and the theory and practice of (Un) Democratic Socialism in Africa 

[6] F, Brockway. (1963) African Socialism. P-12

[7] T, P, Omari(1970)Kwame Nkrumah. P-10

Ethnicity engered “ethnised” politics in Kenya between 1960 and 2000.

Ethnicity refers to the social group of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral culture, social or national experience.[1]Memberships of ethnic tend to be associated with shared culture heritage, history homeland or ideology and with symbolic system such as religion, dressing style, physical appearance and mythodology.

Ethnized politics  is the situation in which political activities in the particular society is characterised by ethnic/ tribes basis such as way that each ethnic group fight/ struggle to acquire political power. Normally it is featured by regionalism and tribalism.

The struggle for independence is the product of European advent and power in Africa. The European advent created the territorial boundaries that have constituted the geographical basis of nationalism. Before the advent of this physical expressions or basis of today’s nationalism was no- existent.

Creation   of these territories in African land especially inter-tribe territories created regionalism, and tribalism that lead to the struggle for independence based on ethnic groups even after independence.

For the purpose of this discussion our case study will only focus in Kenya.

The struggle for independence in Kenya developed into two main phases which are proto-nationalism and mass nationalism as explained bellow;

Proto- nationalism. This was the movement of people existed before 1945, to fight against colonial domination. Proto- nationalist organization in Kenya based on ethnic groups culminated into the Mau Mau war against British colonial and the settler community. Proto- nationalism was ethnically based on the sense that each group fought for their own interest for example kikuyu was one of the ethnic group who fought against British land alienation and forced labour. Apart from kikuyu there were other tribes who fought for their alienated land these include Kipsigis, Maasai, Abuluhya and Kamba. For example about 12,200 square miles or 5.5 percent of the total land area was alienated.[2] Therefore, due to the problem above, the Africans lost their right to own their land as the result led to masses with no land. Also the landless people in Kenya were now used as forced labourers to British settler farms with low wages something that made then to organize in ethnic group to fought against land alienation and forced labour.

The war had a considerable impact in acceleration the struggle and achievement of independence. The proto-nationalist movement had progressive tendencies in the sense that they all made considerable contribution to the anti-colonial struggle.

With the formation of political parties’ proto-nationalist as well as civil society become very important in mobilizing nationals struggle, but most of them based on ethnic which led the foundation for the emergence and growth of ethnized political parties and therefore ethinized politics, which began take place in 1950’s. Examples of such organizations include the Kalenjin political alliance, the Maasai united front and the Abuluhya political union.[3] From 1960’s the Kenya nationalist politics had already been ethnized. Even when country wide or political parties such as KANU ( Kenya Africa national union) and KADU ( Kenya African democratic union were formed they were still characterised as ethnic parties as oyugi state;

The lifting of the ban on territorial political organization in 1960 came at a time when Kenya body politic was already ethnized. Formation of country wide political parties was as would be expected treated with suspicion by those who would not control them.  In deed the proliferation of ethnic based parties between 1955-1962 was an attempt by such actors to establish a frame-work within which to bargain if not compete at the centre. It is against that background that both Kenya Africa national union (KANU) Kenya African democratic union (KADU) emerged as ethnic political parties.[4]

It is no doubt that KANU and KADU were Jomo Kenyatta was rest ethnical based parties because KANU was supported by kikuyu and Luo alliance while KADU ( Kenya African Democratic Union) was supported by Maasai, coastal ethnic groups and the Luhya.

Furthermore , both KANU and KADU had a character of territorial nationalist political parties as they played very important role during the struggle for independence to mobilize all Kenyan people into anti-colonial struggle within the context of ethicized politics.

At independence Kenya had a multi-party system with three political parties namely Kenya Africa national union (KANU), Kenya African democratic Union(KADU) and Africa people party (APP) whereby all of these political parties based on ethnic character. This means that APP was based on Kamba, KADU was based on minority ethnic group and KANU was based on Kikuyu and Luo.

This ethnic politics increased even when Kenya attained her independence in 1963- under multiparty system like KANU, KADU, and APP. Soon after independence, KANU become a ruling party under the control of President Jomo Kenyatta. After entering into office, Kenyatta take stapes which make it difficult for the opposition political parties to operate. Example of the steps taken by President Jomo Kenyatta was restricting provision of government financial support to the opposition political parties. This led to the opposition political parties to dissolve themselves in 1964.

Following withdraw of the opposition political parties; Kenya became Mono-party under President Jomo Kenyatta.

The action taken by President Kenyatta contributed much ethnized politics in Kenya which result to ethnic scramble started taking place within KANU. This situation led to the split of KANU and emergence of other political party namely Kenya people’s Union (KPU) under the control of   Oginga Odinga in 1966. The split of KANU was due to the fact that since KANU was support by kikuyu and Luo but later on president Kenyatta favoured kikuyu and left Luo hopeless something that led to  dissatisfaction of Luo- as the result Luo decided to form their own political party known as KPU  under the leadership of Oginga Odinga.

After the rise of KPU as other political party in Kenya under Luo lead to the rise of conflict between KANU leaders and KPU leaders. About 1969 Tom Mboya the secretary general of KANU was assassinated. His assassination provoked ethnic tension between the Luo and the kikuyu. Following this event, resulted into the arrest and detention of Odinga and other KPU leaders, also KPU was banned by the government. The banning of KPU, made the kikuyu to enjoy privilege in politics matters.

Following the death of Jomo Kenyatta on 22 august 1978, vice president Daniel Arap Moi become president formally after he was elected head of KANU, in June 1982, the national assembly amend the constitution that claim officially Kenya to be mono-party state.

The leadership of Moi was embraced by all Kenyans with hope and high expectation that he will change the existing ethnic politics but unfortunately Moi introduce what so called footsteps.

Moi stated clearly that “he is going to follow the foot step of Kenyatta” which granted the expectation of the citizen futile.[5]  “As Kenyatta had used a kikuyu power based of promoting disproportional for his community, the Kalenjin. KANU soon became a vehicle to promote Kalenjin political sentiments. By 1990, most senior position the govern-owned corporations’ were held by Kalenjin.”

After the shift of the power based from the kikuyu to Kalenjin the mono-party system under Moi was highly associated by abuse of human right, economic corruption and sharp political patronage. All these lead to the ethnic tension and consciousness as marginalization and dipertispation of many powerful ethnic groups into political and social economic system grew, these was first reflected by the formation of ethnic associations which thought their objective was welfare issues. Some of ethnic associations are such as Gikuyu-Embu-Meru associations (GEMA), the Luo union and new Akamba union were formed during 1980’s

Following the formation of ethnic associations lead to the movements demanding democratization and multipartism although the government resisted. But in 1991 the government made it possible multipartism due to pressure from within and international donor community.

In 1991 while demands and struggles for multipartism were taking place, violent ethnic clashes erupted in October 1991 in the rift valley province which comprises western province districts these clashes were started by the Kalenjin  people who comprise of the Nandi, Tugen, Markwet, Kipsigis and Sabact, they use spears, bows and arrows and other weapons they launched the attack on kikuyu, Luo, Luhya and Kisii who since the colonial period had settled in the rift valley province[6]

The ethnic clashes were very serious. It caused death and injuries, internal displacements, destitution and intensive destruction of resources. The agricultural, economic and social infrastructure was highly affected. Crops, livestock and other properties were destroyed and cause starvation to the people. Houses were burnt and some people had to abandon their farm and home resulting into more than 250,000 internally displaced people.[7]

At the mid of 1992, 1500 people had lost their lives, 600 people were injured, 56,000 families lost their property and about  Kshs, 210 million (4 millions us dollars0 worth of property was destroyed.

The ethnic politics during the regime of president Daniel Arap  Moi continued until 2000 where by different ethnic groups support the political parties of their side something that led to the political instability, tribalism and regionalism among the Kenyans.

Generally, the ethnized politics in Kenya is the historical phenomenon which has been emerged since the struggle for independence. Thus made the Kenyans to fight for themselves resulted into deaths, regionalism and tribalism. This ehthized politics is evidenced even today despite the fact that the international communities like United Nations Organisation (UNO)  and Africa unity (AU) put much effort to ensure  that Kenya ethnized politics is removed for example in the 2007 general election Kenya entered into conflict that costed the life of thousands of people after orange democratic movement under Laila Odinga to mobilize his Luo tribe to refuse the election outcomes in which Mwai Kibaki worn the voters under the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC). Ethnized politics is not only the problem of Kenya but this problem is also affect most African countries as we see it in Nigeria currently.

REFERENCES

Gaudence,P. Mpangala(2002). Ethnic conflicts in the region of great lake: origins and prospects

                                                For change. Dar es Salaam: instate of Kiswahili research.

Preeti patel(2001). Multiparty politics in Kenya: volumes xxi/no.1; research fellow. London

www.south sudan news agency.com ethnic politics in Kenya. A history of south sudan should lear from kuach. Y. Tu tkat, 2014/24, January. 23:40

Wikipedia 2014/24 January 16:30

---

[1] Wikipedia 2014/24 January 16:30

[2] Gaudence,P. Mpangala(2002). Ethnic conflicts in the region of great lake: origins and prospects for change.

[3] Oyugi  Ibid. Pg 52

[4] Ibid. Pg 53

[5] www.south sudan news agency.com ethnic politics in Kenya. A history of south sudan should lear from kuach. Y. Tu Tkat.

[6] Ayot in Gaudence,P. Mpangala(2002). Ethnic conflicts in the region of great lake: origins and prospects for change. Pg 55

[7] Wamue in Gaudence,P. Mpangala(2002). Ethnic conflicts in the region of great lake: origins and prospects for change. Pg 56