Effective Peace Advocacy: Gandhi, King and Mandela as Peace Advocates

Mahatma Gandhi visits No. 10 Downing Street in London in 1931. Through his leadership, India secured its independence from British rule. Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Advocating peace as a method for conflict resolution is much harder than advocating peace through any other means.

Advocating peace as a means for political and social change has even proven to be life threatening for many. Yet advocates such as Mohandas K. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela have inspired the world through their efforts to peaceably change social policy and political realities. Peace, once in a great while, is seen as a uniquely powerful means for achieving one’s objectives for unity and harmony in our world.

This kind of peace advocacy requires a dedication to nonviolence and love in the face of oppression, hatred and murder. It requires a steadfast commitment to developing caring, self-reflexive and deliberative communities. In the book Cooperative Argumentation: A Model for Deliberative Community, Josina Makau and Debian Marty touch on the fundamentals of deliberative communities. Cooperative Argumentation presents a peaceful, nonviolent approach to uniting human beings, whether as individuals, small groups, or as nations. The methods advocated in this book provide us with a framework for understanding exactly why Gandhi, King and Mandela’s peace advocacy greatly helped achieve more deliberative, and ultimately more peaceful, communities.

In this paper I will analyze the persuasive dimensions of the dialogue, writings, and actions of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela and compare them with Makau and Marty’s model for a deliberative community. That will include how each man confronted disagreement, developed questioning skills, and how they communicated. It will also include an analysis of the standpoint, power and perspective of each man as well as their ability to relate to audiences.

I will also look at how each man conceptualized nonviolence and humanity in the context of their individual struggles.

The “Great Soul”

Mohandas K. Gandhi was a Hindu, though throughout his life he studied other religions and alternative ways of living. This included celibacy and fasting. His god was one of Truth, Life, and Love.[1] For Gandhi, his life was a series of experiments with Truth, thus the title of his autobiography, The Story of My Experiements with Truth. Politics, economics, social issues, and religion all blended together under the umbrella of Gandhi’s religious beliefs. It is important to understand his religious views because of their prominent role in Gandhi’s decision making.

Gandhi’s criteria were not the usual criteria of politics. His leadership did not depend on victories. He did not have to save ‘face.’ In the autobiography, Gandhi tells of incidents that could not have been known but for him, how he visited a brothel, ate meat in stealth, maltreated his wife, etc. Truth had to be the whole truth or it wasn’t true. Indians, whom suffering has made suspicious, could not suspect Gandhi because he told them everything; he hated secrets; he was his own harshest critic. He could admit blunders, ‘Himalayan’ and less, because he did not claim infallibility or superiority.

Gandhi’s critics complained that he would withdraw from a political battle before all his forces had been brought to bear on the enemy, and sometimes, when success appeared imminent. But what success? His standards of success were moral and religious. They gave his politics the only consistency they had (p. 237, Fischer, 1951).

By trade, Gandhi was a lawyer. Educated in England at the Inns of Court, Gandhi became a barrister and got a job in India, where he found the courtroom a little too intimidating. He was offered a job in South Africa and took it. His journey to South Africa brought him to a crossroads of sorts in his life. He was confronted with fierce racial injustice and began to fight it through the legal system. This is where he discovered that he must combat injustice using more than just the legal methods he had learned. He determined physical force would not help him achieve the justice he sought. This brought him to the beginning of his unique peace advocacy.

Influenced by the Bahagavad Gita, his Hindu upbringing, and other religious texts such as the Bible’s Sermon on the Mount, Gandhi incorporated the idea of suffering and sacrifice into his approach to social and political change. Other significant influences included Leo Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You and John Ruskin’s Unto The Last. These books helped Gandhi understand the importance of equality and good will toward others. They also fortified his belief in the ultimate truth of nonviolence.

Tolstoy’s answer was simple: Life as a Christian should. Concretely, ‘A Christian enters into no dispute with his neighbor, he neither attacks, nor uses violence; on the contrary, he suffers himself, without resistance, and by his very attitude towards evil not only sets himself free, but helps to free the world at large from outward authority (p. 125, Fischer, 1951).

Tolstoy’s ideas about Christian living echoed what Gandhi had gleaned from the Gita and the Sermon on the Mount. Other important influences included his mother. Gandhi learned patience and self-discipline while watching his mother on religious fasts. Jain monks helped his family after his father’s death. From them he learned about nonviolence in practice. 

As an advocate for peace by peaceful means, it was necessary for Gandhi to believe all human beings were redeemable. He had an unfailing belief in the essential goodness of humanity.

Gandhi took from a person, a book, a religion and a situation that which was congenial for him and discarded the rest. He refused to see the bad in people. He often changed human beings by regarding them not as what they were but as though they were what they wished to be, and as though the good in them was all of them (p. 271).

Gandhi confronted disagreement ethically and effectively. He did this by recognizing the value of different points of view. His openness to other’s opinions was necessary part of his search for Truth. He believed in the fundamental interdependence of humanity.

Makau and Marty outline the role this kind of open attitude plays in developing peace.

A lack of faith in the cooperative potential of human nature and a commitment to ‘chic bitterness’ undermines the motivation for shared decision making and collective action (p. 13, 2001).

There was also openness on Gandhi’s part to questioning as a critical thinking tool. He questioned himself above all others. And his conclusions often became his most profound convictions.

Intellectual contact with him was a delight because he opened his mind and allowed one to see how the machine worked. He did not attempt to express his ideas in finished form. He thought aloud; he revealed each step in his thinking. You heard not only words but his thoughts. You could therefore follow him as he moved to a conclusion. This prevented him from talking like a propagandist; he talked like a friend. He was interested in an exchange of views, but much more in the establishment of a personal relationship” (p. 471, Fischer).

Makau and Marty emphasize the importance of critical emotions in peaceful, productive communication, especially the critical emotions empathy and compassion. “By regarding ourselves and others compassionately, we are able to remain open-minded and engaged in dialogue even across critical and difficult differences” (p. 49). Robert Bode writes that Gandhi’s compassion for others was the starting point of all his efforts to communicate ethically.

For Gandhi, the goal of communication was to build and maintain human relationships and thus enhance personhood. Gandhi’s insistence upon nonviolence recognized the importance of others, valued humanity, and appreciated the importance of human relationships and personhood (p. 12, Bode, 1994).

Dialogic communication skills, according to Makau and Marty, also include nondefensive communication, critical self-awareness, and listening attentively. Gandhi exhibited all of these.

Truthfulness, trust, and justice combine to produce safety. These qualities do not protect us from difficult interactions or from facing the impact of new information on our worldviews. Yet, when practiced with an open mind, balanced partiality, a critical self-awareness, we can engage, rather than manage, dialogic interactions (p. 68, Makau & Marty, 2001).

Gandhi’s argumentation style was always extremely cooperative, a prerequisite to developing a deliberative community. Makau and Marty maintain that ethical and effective arguments result from an ethic of interdependence that values relationships as much as a proponent’s own convictions. To Gandhi, the relationship always came first. In many instances he valued the relationship more than his own convictions. Perhaps this is why his communication produced so many extraordinary results. Makau and Marty write that cooperative argumentation is not about winning, but prioritizing sensitivity, responsiveness, and accountability between communicators and audiences, putting the interdependence of relationships first (p. 92).

Makau and Marty recognize the complexity of the human communication process, as well as relationships between humans. They therefore highlight the importance of learning how we make meaning differently out of shared contexts. Ethical and effective advocates are aware of the different ways people make meaning. To understand the way people make meaning, Makau and Marty suggest three concepts worth study: standpoint, power, and perspective.

Standpoint refers to the identities, roles, or status occupied by a communicator….power refers both to institutional and to individual decision-making abilities within particular historical and political situations…perspective refers to…how an individual views or relates to the issues in an argument (p. 163-164).

When an advocate necessarily occupies an identity, role or status, there are other identities, roles, and statuses they are not occupying. An advocate that is more aware of their standpoint can more rationally identify the disadvantages, as well as advantages, of their power position. An understanding of power and perspective ultimately lead to enhanced critical thinking skills. Gandhi chose to look at the standpoint of India in many of his deliberations with politicians. He understood the identity, role and status of India better than many of the members of the Indian National Congress. This helped in his struggle for Independence.

Audiences are an important consideration for any advocate. For the peace advocate responsiveness and respect for an audience plays a critical role in developing deliberative communities. Because of Gandhi’s unique connection with people as discussed above, his communication style serves as a good example of sensitivity to an audience’s values, beliefs, interests, and concerns.

I have been convinced more then ever that human nature is much the same, no matter under what clime it flourishes, and that if you approach people with trust and affection you would have ten-fold trust and thousand-fold affection returned to you (p. 374, Fischer).

Makau and Marty address ethical and effective dialogic communication as a process of communicating with rather than at, to, or for others. This style of communication is effective in peace advocacy because it demonstrates a commitment to listen, as well as be heard. It also demonstrates a commitment to compromise and to solutions acceptable to all parties. Gandhi’s concern for humanity and his willingness to change meant that he always strove for these things in his communication.

Openness, according to Gandhi’s nonviolent communication theory, has to do with the willingness or desire to communicate. Gandhi was willing to sit down and talk. He believed in the basic rights of free speech and the right to make ideas known (p. 15, Bode).

In his written communication, as well as his public addresses, Gandhi demonstrated openness, receptivity, sensitivity to diverse perspectives, compassion, fair-mindedness, nondefensive self-awareness, and other qualities that Makau and Marty associate with ethical and effective dialogue.

Ethics, theories of nonviolence, and peace advocacy have a close relationship. Makau and Marty cite Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hahn,

Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness. (p. 199).

Gandhi believed in ethical, compassionate dialogue and advocacy and often restrained from using his own status as Mahatma to unfairly influence a political or social situation.

Nonviolence was more than non-killing to Gandhi, more than non-hurting. It was freedom. Had he coerced his followers, he would have been a violent dictator (p. 450, Fischer).

This was his ethical advocacy and his nonviolence.

Leadership and power also play an important role in Makau and Marty’s deliberative communities. For them, leadership should reflect a willingness to facilitate ethical and effective deliberation. This means leaders aren’t superior or perfect, but reflective and a catalyst for change. Gandhi is the model for a reflective, catalyst for change. He knew power was not something to wield over others, but something that came from cooperation and consensus. He believed in a much different kind of power, a more moral power that united, not dictated.

Civil Rights Activist

His followers and admirers perhaps best knew Martin Luther King, Jr. as first and foremost a gifted orator and Protestant Christian preacher. King spent much of his academic career and ministry grappling with the concept of “social gospel” which compelled him to reconcile his Christian beliefs with social change, particularly the injustice of racism.

The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but his body, not only his spiritual well-being, but his material well-being. Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial (p. 37-38, King, 1960).

King’s life and philosophy thus revolved around solving the problems presented by evil and injustice. His answers evolved out of both the injustices he witnessed and the education he sought. He had many influences, but it is easier to discuss them as periods in his life, rather than specific people. First was King’s childhood. While growing up his grandfather and father both instilled King with strict Christian values and demonstrated their opposition to segregation.

Plainly his initial and most pivotal instruction in the social gospel occurred at Ebenezer church. There he heard his father’s sermonic exhortations about the Exodus, voting rights, and equal pay for black teachers; there he learned of his father’s leadership of a voting rights march in 1935, when he was six years old (p. 58, Miller, 1992).

King’s childhood was also full of firsthand experiences that taught him the evil of segregation. Much of King’s reading served to put into words many of the things he learned just from being black.

The second period of significant influence in King’s life was during his Morehouse College years and time at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University. There he encountered teachers, preachers, and the works of philosophers that greatly influenced his theology and worldview. Chief among his influences during this period were sermons of many white liberal preachers. “Vastly exaggerating King’s debt to philosophers and theologians, scholars have failed to comprehend the importance of sermons to King and the crucial relationships among preachers and theologians” (p. 45). King borrowed and adapted many sermons by preachers such as Harry Emerson Fosdick and George Buttrick, using them in some of his most famous speeches.

As another advocate for peace by peaceful means, King also believed all human beings were redeemable through God’s love. His unfailing belief was focused slightly less on the essential goodness of human beings and more on the power of love in human affairs. He describes this love through the Greek word “agape.”

Agape does not begin by discriminating between worthy and unworthy people, or any qualities people possess. It begins by loving others for their sakes. It is an entirely ‘neighbor-regarding concern for others,’ which discovers the neighbor in every man it meets (p. 19, King, 1958).

King confronted disagreement ethically and effectively. Like Gandhi, he also believed in the fundamental interdependence of humanity.

Through our scientific genius we have made this world a neighborhood; not through our moral and spiritual development we make of it a brotherhood. In a real sense, we must all learn to live together as brothers, or we will all perish together as fools. We must come to see that no individual can live alone; no nation can live alone. We must all live together; we must all be concerned about each other (p. 209, King, 1961).

We can see the development of a healthy questioning habit in King’s academic career. He often questioned others in his thirst for understanding; chief among them was one of his mentors, Morehouse College President Benjamin Mays. “When the service was over, the adolescent King sometimes followed the smooth orator to his office where they would chat about his just-completed sermon” (p. 41, Miller).

Nondefensive communication, as described by Makau and Marty, came from character development and strength. “Nondefensive communication expresses a person’s dignity and his or her willingness to contribute to a dialogue with relational integrity” (p. 55, Makau & Marty). King had an undeniable dignity, perhaps attributable to the persona of a southern Protestant preacher, but certainly due to his commitment to building up people and communities. Speaking of the utility of tension, King wrote that nonviolent tension, which includes things such as criticism, is necessary for growth (p. 84, Baldwin, 2002).

Another important aspect of developing deliberative communities is one’s attitude toward argumentation. Makau and Marty have suggested that argumentation can be viewed as either competitive or cooperative. The peace advocate uses cooperative argumentation to develop relationships ethically and effectively in an attempt to present solutions. Cooperative argumentation is based on an ethic of interdependence and draws strength by trusting in the process of consensus building, even in the midst of seemingly incompatible positions.

This redefinition of strength through interdependence, vulnerability, and cooperative risk-taking bears further exploration, particularly in the context of power imbalances. The civil rights context of Dr. King’s story allows us to understand his message as a call for nonviolent action in the face of violent repression (p. 90).

King also understood the complex relationships between standpoint, power, and perspective. King’s unique understanding of the identity, roles, and status of African Americans was the product of years of reflection and study. He understood how whites perceived African Americans and how they perceived themselves. He also understood how power relationships and perspective could be manipulated by the new identities, roles and status that African Americans could demand for themselves through nonviolent protest. “Our powerful weapons are the voices, the feet, and the bodies of dedicated, united people, moving without rest toward a just goal” (p. 34, King, 1959).

Part of understanding the role of perspective is awareness and sensitivity to an audience’s values, beliefs, interests, and concerns. King was acutely aware of both his white and black audience’s values, beliefs, interests, and concerns in his fight for civil rights. At times he reminded them, even shook them awake, to their values and beliefs.

So I say to you, my friends, that even though we must face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed—we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! (p. 219).

King’s written communications as well as his public addresses, which include his speeches and sermons, are famous for their passion and eloquence, but they also contained the elements of effective, ethical dialogue because they considered the audience’s values and beliefs.

Authors must first conceive of their audience. What are the audience’s beliefs, expectations, values? How can I best present my arguments to them in light of their predispositions? Do I have relevant standpoints to consider on my own behalf or on behalf of my audience? (p. 180, Makau and Marty)

King often appealed to universal values such as love and justice in his writings and speeches. He also sought white scholars, theologians and leaders who advocated these things as references. Keith Miller argues that King learned the lessons of love and justice from his father and his through his upbringing, but listed many white protestant theologians as sources of inspiration because he could better connect with white audiences.

Had he credited his father and his community for nurturing his ideas and leadership, white readers … would never have admired him or have granted him a philosophical persona. They would have regarded him as merely another black preacher objecting to segregation. King placed a philosophical patina on his oratory and himself in order to persuade whites who ignored appeals from other eloquent blacks. Mining sources for his essay meant merging his voice and his identity with a highly prestigious tradition of the white majority. Establishing his credentials as a student of Hegel and Marx aided him in making his central and overriding argument for this-worldly liberation from oppression (p. 65).

This interpretation suggests King understood his audience’s values, beliefs, interests, and concerns and was able to meet them by holding up recognizable personas, not just recognizable concepts such as love and justice. Perhaps King knew he had to show his opponents what love and justice looked like through white philosophical and theological perspectives.

Through his appeals to the conscience of black and white America King demonstrated ethical advocacy. It is most clearly demonstrated in his attitude toward his opponents. Love, understanding, justice, and liberation from the evils of segregation were universal principles to him and transcended color. “Advocates who commit themselves to using power truthfully experience a change in their priorities” (p. 200, Makau & Marty). King shifted the priorities of the civil rights campaign. He did not want to simply end segregation; he wanted to unite blacks and whites. He used his leadership and power to develop a deliberative community that would include everyone.

Political Prisoner

Nelson Mandela does not so much credit religion as shaping his approach to peace as he does more generalized ethical principles he seems to have formed though everyday events during his childhood. In his autobiography he writes about an experience trying to ride a donkey. The donkey threw him off its back into a bunch of thorns and they scratched his face, embarrassing him in front of his friends. Even this early experience shaped some of his political ethics.

Like the people of the East, Africans have a highly developed sense of dignity, or what the Chinese call ‘face.’ I had lost face among my friends. Even though it was a donkey that unseated me, I learned that to humiliate another person is to make him suffer an unnecessarily cruel fate. Even as a boy, I defeated my opponents without dishonoring them (p. 10, Mandela, 1994).

Other childhood experiences were even more directly political.  When he was very young his father died and he was sent to live with the regent of his people, the Thembu. Mandela observed regular meetings the regent had at the Great Palace. He noted how everyone was allowed to speak. “It was democracy in its purest form,” Mandela writes. He also noted how open and critical the chiefs and headmen were of the regent.

He was not above criticism—in fact, he was often the principal target of it. But no matter how flagrant the charge, the regent simply listened, not defending himself, showing no emotion at all.

The meetings would continue until some kind of consensus was reached. They ended in unanimity or not at all. Unanimity, however, might be an agreement to disagree, to wait for a more propitious time to propose a solution. Democracy meant all men were to be heard, and a decision was taken together as a people. Majority rule was a foreign notion. A minority was not to be crushed by a majority.

…As a leader, I have always followed the principles I first saw demonstrated by the regent at the Great Palace. I have always endeavored to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion. Oftentimes, my own opinion will simply represent a consensus of what I heard in the discussion. I always remember the regent’s axiom: a leader, he said, is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind (p. 22).

Mandela received a good education considering he was a black South African. He eventually became interested in law and politics, becoming a lawyer and political leader in the African National Congress. As Mandela’s life and education progressed, he became involved in the struggle against racial oppression. He was inspired by political campaigns that embodied the principles of nonviolent action. In particular, he writes about the influence of the Indian Campaign in 1946. It was organized as a means of protesting the passage of the Asiatic Land Tenure Act, which limited the freedoms of Indians to travel, live, and own property. Nonviolent resistance in the form of rallies, picketing and arrests was the kind of campaign Mandela’s “Youth League” was calling for.

It instilled a spirit of defiance and radicalism among the people, broke the fear of prison, and boosted the popularity and influence of the NIC and TIC. They reminded us that the freedom struggle was not merely a question of making speeches, holding meetings, passing resolutions, and sending deputations, but of meticulous organization, militant mass action, and, above all, the willingness to suffer and sacrifice (p. 104).

Influences in Mandela’s life included many individuals who were directly involved in the black South African struggle for freedom. One man was Gaur Radebe. Radebe was active in the African National Congress and the Communist Party. He did not earn his college degree, but was an outspoken leader whom Mandela learned to respect for his proactive nature. “I learned from Gaur that a degree was not in itself a guarantee of leadership and this it meant nothing unless one went out into the community to prove oneself” (p. 74). Another man of great influence on Mandela’s life and work was his friend Walter Sisulu. Mandela writes,

Walter was strong, reasonable, practical, and dedicated. He never lost his head in a crisis; he was often silent when others were shouting” (p. 95).

There are many other influential leaders and friends, but it should also be noted that the experience of living in oppressive South Africa during apartheid was often his greatest source of character education. There he encountered discrimination and hatred, yet saw the efforts of good men and women to change their world. This was the context from which his greatest influences sprang.

Like Gandhi and King, Mandela searched for the good in his opponents. He wrote of several experiences in which his prison guards let their respect and admiration for him show through.

Men like Swart, Gregory, and Warrant officer Brand reinforced my belief in the essential humanity even of those who had kept me behind bars for the previous twenty-seven and a half years” (p. 562).

And despite his ups and downs with South African President F. W. de Klerk during negotiations, they were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.

I was often asked how could I accept the award jointly with Mr. De Klerk after I had criticized him so severely. Although I would not take back my criticisms, I could say that he had made a genuine and indispensable contribution to the peace process. I never sought to undermine Mr. de Klerk, for the practical reason that the weaker he was, the weaker the negotiations process. To make peace with an enemy one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes one’s partner (p. 612).

Looking back on his long walk to freedom, Mandela notes the essential humanity of people once more.

I always knew that deep down in every human heart, there is mercy and generosity. No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite. Even in the grimmest times in prison, when my comrades and I were pushed to our limits, I would see a glimmer of humanity in one of the guards, perhaps just for a second, but it was enough to reassure me and keep me going. Man’s goodness is a flame that can be hidden but never extinguished (p. 622).

Mandela confronted disagreement with patience and compassionate logic. His approach to conflict and disagreement seems to echo the approach of the regent of the Thembu people, whom he had witnessed as a child. His openness to other’s opinions was necessary part of his leadership ethic. For him it was respectful as well as effective.

Though Mandela is clear about his opposition and stubbornness, especially early in his political career, he did engender the patience in his leadership role that is critical to Makau and Marty’s “questioning habit.” One thing Mandela did undoubtedly exhibit was a critical self-awareness, often seen as confidence in his role as freedom fighter. His critical self-awareness was deeper than confidence, however. He understood the perspectives of others and the social identities of others. Makau and Marty describe this characteristic as central to productive dialogic communication skills.

Mandela’s advocacy was conducted as cooperative argumentation. He respected trust and goodwill so much so that once he recognized it in an opponent or enemy, he was able to respond without malice to that person. When he was arrested in August 1962 he was being transported to Johannesburg. Along the way he had the opportunity to escape while his captors allowed him to take a brief walk. He writes that he never contemplated escape when people were kind to him. “I did not want to take advantage of the trust they placed in me” (p. 316). He valued relationships, in many instances, as much as the goals for which he was striving.

After he was arrested, Mandela was put on trial and chose to defend himself. His idea was to use the trial as a “showcase for the ANC’s moral opposition to racism” (p. 317). He would not defend himself. He would put the state on trial. He had accepted the idea of violence, but did not ignore the power of international opinion. Mandela’s decision not to defend himself against the state’s charges, instead accepting them willingly and without shame, illustrates an important point in regards to standpoint, power and perspective. He understood the varying identities, roles, and status occupied by a black South Africans and by their opponents. He understood how power relationships worked in terms of international opinion and within the country of South Africa as well. It gave him a unique perspective with which to make his case.

Mandela knew that when an aggressor is unjust, nonviolence (in this case his no defense strategy) exposes the injustice. Violence in action corrupts, hates and destroys. Nonviolence in action exposes, loves and unites. Nonviolence is not inactive or passive. It does not make excuses or defend itself as weak or in error. Its strength is that it reaffirms itself in an effort to confirm the injustice of the opponent.

Throughout his writings, dialogues with opponents and colleagues, and his public addresses Mandela displayed a sensitivity to his audiences that proved successful in promoting and advocating peace. Makau and Marty suggest, “ethical and effective decision-making processes necessarily depend upon inclusive, diverse input that fully draws upon the values, assumptions, and experiences of all those represented” (p. 202). Mandela displayed these characteristics when dealing with conflict. He was an ethical advocate, as any advocate of peace should be. He was committed to using power truthfully. His goal was always equality and justice. His long walk to freedom was about more than his three decades spent in prison. It was about his perseverance in the belief that truth would prevail if he fought for it.

His advocacy for peace was an approach to relationship building that engendered love, hope, truth, and critical self-awareness. And his legacy as a peace advocate is that he believed that hatred, closed-mindedness and prejudice are the true enemies.

A man who takes away another man’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else’s freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity (p. 624).

Conclussions

Gandhi, King and Mandela are admired largely due to the fact that they were successful peace advocates. They failed at times and Gandhi and King paid the ultimate price for their ideologies in the end. But these three shared many of the same approaches to developing deliberative communities mentioned in Makau and Marty’s book.

I believe that it is because these men confronted disagreement and adversity ethically and effectively that they were successful in advocating peace. Their individual ethical motivations came from a variety of experiences, influences and beliefs, but they each centered on critical, careful thinking, a faith in the goodness of humanity, and open-minded, nondefensive communication. It should come as little surprise that peaceful communication and advocacy can create peace. Sadly in relations between individuals as well as nations this approach is all too rarely the model for developing a more peaceful world. Gandhi, King and Mandela serve as prominent examples of the effectiveness of peaceful means to peaceful ends. May we ignore them at our own peril.

Bibliography

Bode, R. A. (1994). Gandhi’s Theory of Nonviolent Communication. Gandhi Marg. 5-30.

Cone, J. H. (1991). Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream of a Nightmare. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Fischer, L. (1951). The Life of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi, India: HarperCollins Publishers.

Gandhi, M. K. (1957). Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth. Boston, Mass., Beacon Press.

Mandela, N. R. (1995). Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Back Bay Books.

Makau, J. M. & Marty D. L. (2001). Cooperative Argumentation: A Model for Deliberative Community. Prospect Heights, Ill., Waveland Press, Inc.

Martin, B. & Varney, W. (2003). Nonviolence and Communication. Journal of Peace Research, 40. 213-232.

Miller, K. D. (1992). Voice of Deliverance: The Language of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Its Sources. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Baldwin, L. V. with Burrow, Jr., R., Holmes, B. A., & Holmes Winfield, S. (2002). The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Boundaries of Law, Politics, and Religion. University of Notre Dame Press.

Kern-Foxworth, Marilyn. ( 1992). Martin Luther King Jr.: Minister, civil rights activist, and public opinion leader. Public Relations Review. 18 (3, Fall) p. 287-296.

Washington, J. M. (Ed.) (1986). A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.New York, NY, Harpercollins Publishers.

[1] Louis Fischer’s “ The Life of Mahatma Gandhi” p. 378