'Nonviolence' may have differing meanings for people. In one way it can be defined, negatively, as an unwillingness to harm other people; put positively, it involves complete respect for other people - pretty difficult in a world where deriding your opponent has been turned into an art form! So does nonviolence become a nice, polite, irrelevance? This short piece tries to argue that nonviolence is not only relevant to politics but also successful.

Northern Ireland is used not only to the politics of sectarianism and the sectarianism of politics, but also a situation in which normal political issues such as unemployment, poverty, policy issues and health are neglected because of the sectarian and violent situation, even when a local administration is in place. While co-operation does happen to a surprising degree across a number of barriers, there is a large lack of trust of people on 'the other side'. And everything is seen in win/lose terms; if Protestants gain, Catholics have to lose, if Catholics gain, Protestants have to lose. It may be difficult to see and follow through the possibility of 'win/win' solutions, where everyone gains something; but, to put it in its most simplistic terms in relation to Northern Ireland, what if unionists have increased and real security (not the military kind) and nationalists increased recognition of their identity in a 'win/win' solution?

In the Republic, various scandals regarding politicians have increased the already existing scepticism about what politicians are there for. There is a need for integrity, for clarity of purpose, and for a vision beyond simply milking the Celtic Tiger, when so many social needs remain unmet.

But its does not mean that we have to give up on our own political ideas and aspirations. Rather it means that we appreciate the other person has valid political ideas; we recognise we need to get to know them, to build up a relationship with them. Once we start to do this we can look at ways in which we can develop 'win/win' solutions rather than 'win/lose' solutions. Because it is effective it can be adopted for 'pragmatic' reasons ('it works') as well as 'moral' reasons ('it's the right thing to do').

But complexities and difficult issues remain. 'Boycotting' is a classic nonviolent tactic which can be used to great effect (the business sector was an important factor in leading to changes in apartheid South Africa, in response to boycotts and economic pressure). But, to take the Northern Ireland context, is it legitimate to boycott a shop because you disagree with the political orientation of the shop owner? Internationally, sanctions against Iraq have been seen to bolster Saddam Hussein and injure ordinary people. Such questions need to be considered in the wider context of what is likely to lead to progress in a situation.

'Nonviolent direct action' is where we use our bodies in some way as a nonviolent weapon in a political cause or do an action which is deliberately illegal (e.g. destroying GM/genetically modified crops). It is often used by mothers or parents in blocking roads to protest against traffic accidents involving children. It was used to some effect during Bishopscourt Peace Camp in Co Down between 1983-86 in protest against the radar base which was then located there. It has been used with effect in Britain against road developments and in Germany against nuclear waste shipments. A key point of such nonviolence is that protesters accept the consequences of their actions; while they may vigourously contest any resultant court cases they will openly admit the actions they were involved in.

Nonviolence has a lot of strength; it aims to be strong but sensitive, determined but not damning the other side. Those using nonviolent action don't claim to be 'pure' in the sense of having solely altruistic motives! Those who believe in nonviolence should be fully aware of their own drawbacks and deficiencies - it's certainly not a matter of being perfect. But in dealing with an injustice which we feel, we have a moral strength in dealing with the issue in a way which is least threatening to the other side, and least likely to divide and alienate our own supporters. We are not made to feel guilty about dealing back dirty deed for dirty deed. Our openness and respect for the other should make communication easier.

Nonviolence is an approach essential to the future of this island, North or South. The range of possibilities and approaches within nonviolence are enormous. Politics is sometimes defined as the art of the possible; in Northern Ireland this has become the art of the impossible (because each side expects of the opponent what is impossible). Nonviolence is a way to break through the impossibilities by building relationships of growing respect and interdependency. It's a long road still out of the quagmire in Northern Ireland, and nonviolence is an important and essential part of that road.

Questions for personal reflection or group discussion:

1. Is nonviolence relevant to change and political struggle? If 'yes', then in what ways?
2. How difficult is change on different situations? Think of, or list, different situations (e.g. poverty and unemployment at home, sectarianism in Northern Ireland, racism and the need for multiculturalism, world poverty and justice etc.). How can change take place on these issues?
3. Do you enjoy being involved in 'politics' and political change?
4. What kind of nonviolent tactics do you think are appropriate or inappropriate in our situation and for the causes you believe in?