The debate between bloggers on the question of whether we should promote violence as a solution to ending the military’s unlawful siege over Fiji has been center stage on several blogs for the past few days.
On the one hand, we have proponents of a violent solution, championed by the Anon and Observer (with Goneyalewaniviti waiting on the wings eager to sign up).
On the other, we have proponents of a peaceful and lawful solution, championed by Fuggedaboutit, Bainivore, Raho, Tui, Tuma, Iama, Kutu Sebe Nei Vore, Cicero and a few others. See also the post by Discombobulated Bubu at http://discombobulatedbubu.blogspot.com/2007/06/violence-begets-violence-dont-lose.html
And then we have Ali the Nut who doesn’t really know whether he’s coming or going.
The bloggers are united in their view that the coup was wrong.
That the military IG must go.
And that we must all play our part to ensure that this happens.
But the two groups are divided on the METHODOLOGY.
Observer and Anon (who HnC believes are one and the same person) argue that we must accept the fact that the military have usurped power from the people “at the barrel of a gun”.
They say that we can’t change that fact through dialogue alone.
That the military will not simply hand back power to the people, voluntarily.
That the only way to restore democracy is “at the barrel of ANOTHER gun”.
They say that we must encourage the people of Fiji to engage in coordinated attacks against Fiji’s key revenue earners like sugar and tourism so that eventually we can starve the military machinery of the funds they badly need to maintain their hold on power.
Non-violent bloggers believe that sabotaging our own economy is a very dangerous and foolhardy approach.
They advocate sustained pressure through the legal system and the international community.
They advocate continued daily prayers.
They advocate that we continue to critique every decision made by the IG to let the people of Fiji and the international community know the truth of what is happening here.
Non-violent bloggers believe that if the local and international community continue to apply pressure on this regime, the regime will crumble - most likely from within.
Non-violent bloggers believe that we should expose tell-tale signs that the regime is crumbling, so that we can encourage that process.
Non-violent bloggers believe therefore that sustained pressure, like a continous drop of water, will eventually bore a hole in the stoney resolve of the Fiji Military Forces.
Pro-violence bloggers want achieve the same result by using dynamite. Which, although is admittedly much faster, usually, however, leaves the entire rock destroyed and unusable.
So who is right?
Should we attack and weaken Fiji’s economy and suffer the short term consequences, which may include the injury or deaths of innocent civillians, but will rid Fiji of its army once and for all and ensure the long term survival of democracy.
Or should we be patient and sensible in our approach and put our faith in the law, in the international community and in God?
For me, I am 100% against violence.
Source
