Violence seems inherently unethical, but anticolonialism presents a curious exception to this rule. Anticolonialism is the process by which the practice of colonialism is resisted and dismantled. Different colonial contexts and anti-colonial movements vary their use of force. Many African countries gained independence through a combination of peaceful and violent means, for example Kenya. Does decolonisation justify violence? How can a force intended to hurt, damage, or kill ever be seen as ethical?

Frantz Fanon, a French psychiatrist working in Algeria during the war for independence (1954 to 1962), was firm in his advocation of violence as a means of resistance against colonial oppression. Treating French soldiers and Algerian revolutionaries, Fanon had a unique insight into the psychological dimensions of colonialism, which he detailed in his seminal work, The Wretched of the Earth. He felt that since colonisers ruled through violence, it stands to reason that it would require the same means to overthrow them. The colonisers would “only [give] in when confronted with greater violence”. However, he also found that the colonised had suffered psychological violence and had developed a sense of inferiority compared to their white oppressors. Fanon argued that only through violence could they liberate themselves from their internalised racism and recognised their worth.

However, other thinkers, such as Bhuwan Kumar Jha refute Fanon’s arguments. He argues against violence as a means of liberation; any post-colonial governing force who gain freedom through violence would likely rule through violence, because that is what they know. Fanon even admits that "other countries through political action and through the work of clarification undertaken by a party have led their people to the same results" therefore admitting that violence is not the only means of liberation.

Kumar Jha has further issues with Fanon’s work, for instance he points out another case in which Fanon contradicts himself. Fanon gives an example of a patient who planted a bomb that killed ten, and instead of cleansing his inferiority complex, the man developed anxiety, insomnia and suicidal obsessions. Another example he cites is that of an Algerian man, whose mother was senselessly murdered by white men. He kills a white woman in revenge, but he develops an anxiety psychosis, not psychological liberation. Hannah Arendt, states that if violence could solve internal wounds, revenge would solve many societal problems, which simply is not true.

The argument that violence can be used as a unifying force is also disputed, saying that genuine solidarity can never be achieved while a group is engaged in physical combat, because they are in an emotional state of anger and hatred. Unity can only be achieved through harmony and friendship.

Moreover, violence tends to achieve short-term goals, whereas long-term goals such as establishing post-colonial political structures would be hindered, because violence would seep into the system. Ultimately, there are many flaws with Fanon’s work, and contradictions that suggest violence is counterintuitive to anticolonialism.

Some argue that framing anti-colonialism solely around violence oversimplifies the discussion and neglects the nuances and complexities of the independence movements that swept through Africa. Ghana, for instance, gained independence from British colonial rule through nonviolent means: they had peaceful protests, civil disobedience, and negotiations. The leader of the independence movement, Kwame Nkrumah, was insistent on peaceful resistance being their central strategy, and in 1957 Gold Coast became Ghana. Kenya followed suit, but not through entirely peaceful means. The Mau Mau Uprising killed tens of thousands, but most were Kenyan people. The British suspended civil liberties, massacred thousands, and forced thousands more into concentration camps. It was only though the 66-seat Legislative Council – peaceful negotiation – that Kenya was able to achieve decolonisation. The violence only served to kill thousands of their own people. Malawi, Zambia, Lesotho, Botswana, and Gambia also all achieved independence through diplomatic negotiations with the British.

Through the past, we learn lessons for today. Violence continues to loom large as a means to achieve equality, a thought that reverberates not only within the context of colonialism but also within contemporary social movements. Andreas Malm’s book How to Blow Up a Pipeline published 2021 discusses the use of violence within the environmental movement. These lessons from colonialism, however, teaches us that violence is not the only means of achieving the societal and legislative transformation these movements desire.

Other countries – like Guinea, Nigeria, and Mozambique – gained their independence through intense military struggles, however, we can see now that violence was not necessary. It was possible to achieve decolonisation through peaceful means. Violence cannot be fully ethically justified, it only harms those trying to gain independence, not the oppressors.

Related Blogs

• 

  Disinformation is threatening democracy and governments are only half listening

• 

  Let’s drop the obsession with net migration figures.

• 

  Growing up in front of a camera: The worrying trend of family influencers documenting every second of their children’s upbringings

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.