These, the fleeing refugees, must be at the centre of sustaible  peace

The New Deal’s Deal: Waging “Revolutionary Violence” for "The People"

18 May 04

Violence, justified in the name of the people, and for political objectives of the few, has historically shown its limitations and long-term adverse effects. While it may serve the interests of those who use it to advance their political projects, as in the case of the Soviet Union and Cambodia, amongst many others, it soon leads to tyranny and therefore economic decay with the people as the prey. Soon, a regime born in flames is buried in them, along with those it pretends to serve. The strengths and therefore sustainability of western democracy are not necessarily based on the prescriptions it offers for the common man, but for its preaching of, and adherence to the institutions of law and order, however pretentious in many cases

But “revolutionary violence” was the undeniable mantra of activists in the 1970s and earlier, for peaceful means to change were denied. One could not sit with the colonialist and talk peace, nor with the agents of apartheid to beg for peace. Armed struggle was heroic. Military coups, though they brought corruption and misery, were welcomed by  the people's belly dancers seeing salvation.  Therefore, any revolutionary who did not endorse the concepts of revolutionary violence was a traitor, a “petty bourgeois reactionary”, a charge punishable by death if the revolutionaries came to power or before.  “Revolutionary violence” used by the unselected few holding on their chests all answers for economic, political and social development, and shooting those who question them, was a romantic idea of doom, and history should have by now provided sufficient evidence as to why it is futile, adventurous and infantile.

Not so, in a story attributed to one of the presidential candidates in the scheduled October Liberian elections. Dr. George Klay Kieh, a US-based politician, according to a story circulated, says he will use “revolutionary violence in the name of the people if he is elected:     

“To Bring About Change, VIOLENCE IS NECESSARY Says Kieh

By Sidiki Trawally, from Maryland
 
 
The head of the New Deal Party (NDP), one of many Liberia's political parties registered to contest the seat of the presidency says revolutionary violence is an ultimate reason to accomplish a political goal in the interest of the people. Dr. George Kieh said though violence is not a good option to institute a political change, "but if all legal and constitutional protocols are exhausted, violence becomes necessary.

Dr. Kieh said he believes in revolutionary violence and not 'predatory violence.' Drawing a distinction between the two types of violence, he said revolutionary violence focuses on its target in the interest of the people. Predatory violence, he said is selfish, adding, people will lose their lives and
properties will get destroyed.? He noted the 1990 war is an example of predatory
violence….”

Here is a splendid campaign programme for the voters struggling to come out of perhaps the most debased violence ever perpetrated not only in Liberia, but in West Africa or Africa as a whole. But Mr. Kieh, who lectures political science in the US, could say the violence Charles Taylor and other warlords represented is “predatory violence.” His, he has clarified, is “revolutionary violence” in the name of the people, for their interests and economic development. He, in his head, along with like-minded members of the party politburo, will sit as judges, jurors and policemen to determine the kind of revolutionary punishment those who disagree with them get.  

The politician says his violence will have its carefully selected targets, no doubts about that. If this is the difference, then it is hardly a difference. Charles Taylor and Samuel Doe had their carefully selected targets—the opposition, journalists, students, etc.

Violence surprisingly used on the people’s behalf has so many tragic reminders that one seriously  seeking political power to ensure peace and stability would be careful not to use the word. In Sierra Leone, under the “Revolutionary United Front”, the people were told they needed revolutionary violence to be better off, and children, in their tens of thousands, became the agents of revolutionary violence as they gunned down anyone, including parents, before them.  The Khamer Roudge in Cambodia herded all intellectuals, artists, engineers from the capital into the fields to work, where many were shot in revolutionary violence in the name of the people. The monumental crimes committed in the name of “revolutionary violence”, by a clique of individuals imbued with the dangerous prescription that the best way to solve society’s ever-mounting problems is through “revolutionary violence”, still stare humanity in the face with disbelief. Soviet power, however its proclaimed humanity found in its concepts, collapsed because, amongst others, it was conceived out of violence and had to be maintained via violence. When revolutionary violence was no longer strong to ensure submission to the will of the party few who held the secrets of a better society, it fell, and was buried in the same manner in rose in 1917. It took on the surface only a mob led by a man with love for whisky, Boris Yelsin, to bring it down crumbling.   

For some of us who thought the New Deal would offer us a new deal in October, it is time for a serious rethink. We may be herded into the Sappo Gulag for our writings and questions to face the justice of revolutionary violence. All those who disagree with the party will become "enemies of the people" subjected to revolutionary violence—execution by firing squad. The Constitution will be burnt because it is an instrument against revolutionary violence, since it is built on laws, and not violence.

The New Deal and Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia now have one thing in common. In 1997, Taylor unveiled his political programme, at the centre the creation of a 15,000-strong army complete with navy, air force, as enforcing institutions of his violent will. George Kieh is telling us he will have his revolutionary guards, ready to carefully select his targets who will face “revolutionary justice”, his justice.   He has just lost one vote. But at least Dr. Kieh has shown some honesty in telling us what his plans are.

--Tom Kamara

_______________