The world we live in today has many way to make it seem as if we are in a more violent and cruel time than ever before. We see violence strewn across the news and on all forms of social media. This violence is an inevitable part of life some people argue, however many psychologists and behaviourists say otherwise. Whether or not humans are innately violent, we sometimes see that words are in fact more effective than physical strength. When an assembly of people are demanding change from a group or government, chances are, at first glance they are asking for this change as they are not deemed to be powerful enough themselves to make the change they wish to see. In his article, “National Images and International Systems”, Kenneth Boulding talks
…show more content…
We will look at the benefits that came from their decision to enact a non-violent resistance.
In 1996, Serbia had been under communist rule for four decades, but in November of that year, during election for local public offices, candidacy had been opened up to more parties than solely the communists. This shift in politics sparked the start of the reasoning for the necessity of non-violent resistance. On November 17th, the victory of the Zajedno or Togetherness for Serbia party, a centre-left social democratic political party, became the victor of the election. Unfortunately, the elections commission in Belgrade announced the results unofficial because of some non-uniformity in the information received from the poling stations.2 This prompted Serbians to band together during this time of injustice and march against the election fraud happening in their country. Zajedno stated that protests should be non-violent, so people started marching in groups of tens of thousands to demonstrate their upset at this corruption. Protests ranged a multitude of cities, people joined together with banners, noise makers, and chants to show their support. In Belgrade, Serbia’s capital, the marches would start off in a central area and then everyone would walk together past notable locations, such as, Milosevic’s presidential office, the city council office and the state television
We will look at the benefits that came from their decision to enact a non-violent resistance.
In 1996, Serbia had been under communist rule for four decades, but in November of that year, during election for local public offices, candidacy had been opened up to more parties than solely the communists. This shift in politics sparked the start of the reasoning for the necessity of non-violent resistance. On November 17th, the victory of the Zajedno or Togetherness for Serbia party, a centre-left social democratic political party, became the victor of the election. Unfortunately, the elections commission in Belgrade announced the results unofficial because of some non-uniformity in the information received from the poling stations.2 This prompted Serbians to band together during this time of injustice and march against the election fraud happening in their country. Zajedno stated that protests should be non-violent, so people started marching in groups of tens of thousands to demonstrate their upset at this corruption. Protests ranged a multitude of cities, people joined together with banners, noise makers, and chants to show their support. In Belgrade, Serbia’s capital, the marches would start off in a central area and then everyone would walk together past notable locations, such as, Milosevic’s presidential office, the city council office and the state television