Polands Solidarity Movement 1980 1989 Essay

SEM 416

As XXXX points out from the onset, the attendance of nonviolence is a daily effort. This is to say that nonviolence is not an automatic response, but rather a deliberate and considered course of action. There are numerous nonviolent movements that have been active in the past. In seeking to demonstrate that nonviolence is indeed achievable, it would be prudent to highlight two of these movements. The two movements that will be discussed in this text are: Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989) and Poland’s Solidarity Movement (1980-1989).

Poland’s Solidarity Movement (1980-1989)

It is important to note, from the onset, that the groundwork for Poland’s Solidarity movement was set in 1946 following the parliamentary electoral fraud perpetrated by the communists. This is more so the case taking into consideration the resulting civil resistance that went on until Solidarity become prominent – and the larger society found a way of embracing consolidation and coordinated efforts. In itself, Solidarity was founded in August 1980 (International Center on Nonviolent Conflict – ICNC, 2020). In essence, the new movement was firmly rooted in trade unionism. To a large extent, Solidarity was able to uncover inconsistencies being propagated by the regime at the time – especially in as far as the said regime’s worker-friendliness was concerned. Slowly, Solidarity was able to promote freedom of expression and encourage discourse on divergent perspectives. However, one key distinguishing factor an all the operations of Solidarity was the call for nonviolence (ICNC, 2020). From early on, the movement embraced the nonviolence principle and pursued a wide range of nonviolent approaches including, but not limited to, protests and strikes, slow-downs, distribution of underground publications on the cause, running of underground radio stations (i.e. Radio S), protest painting, etc. This nonviolent stance became the defining element of the movement and made it possible – in 1989 – for the transfer of power to be peaceful. Essentially, we could say that Poland is a successful democratic society today as a consequence of Solidarity to embrace a peaceful, as opposed to violent, course of action. Under the able leadership of Lech Walesa, Solidarity was able to facilitate the birth of Poland from a communist country to a democratic society having respect for the freedoms of the masses and promoting the wellbeing of all.

Several times, leaders of solidarity had their lives threatened – primarily through constant harassment and arbitrarily arrests – especially after the communist regime started fretting over the growing popularity of the movement that had already garnered official membership in excess of 10 million people (ICNC, 2020). However, all…

Some parts of this document are missing

Click here to view full document

…a compromise government – without necessarily crippling existing social and government functions.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it should be noted that on the basis of the discussion above, violence is not the only way to make progress even in scenarios of civil disobedience and unrest. History has plenty of lessons to backup this particular claim. In Libya for instance, where the NATO-backed rebels were able to kick out the dictatorial Muammar Gaddafi through armed and violent means, peace and tranquility is yet to be achieved – close to a decade since Gaddafi was ousted. The country remains largely lawless and chaotic. The nonviolent approach adopted by Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989) and Poland’s Solidarity Movement (1980-1989) offers very important lessons in as far as the preservation of peace, wellbeing, and social tranquility is concerned. These examples indicate that violence is, almost always, not the best course of action. However, we ought to be aware of the fact that embracing a pacifist stance is not easy in a world that is preoccupied with fanning fires of war. Nicholas Murray Butler found this to be a rather difficult undertaking. At one point, he was committed to peace, while at another, he was supporting war. His dilemma indicated how difficult it was to “differentiate between individual loyalty to one's…