Passive vs. Active: which strategy is better?

How do you go about getting what you want? Do you take the more mature approach and ask for it? Or do you blackmail, and threaten to get it. Although Aung San Suu Kyi's speech and Malcolm X's speeches are similar in how government conspires against its people, both are complete opposite strategies to persuade oppressed people to change government.

Both of these speeches are defined by the emotions which they are encouraging. Malcolm X's strategy is very aggressive and threatening, for he believes to make change, there must be an ultimatum against the government: "The ballot or the bullet." Malcolm X very much believes that the end justifies the means because he is willing to give into chaos, violence, and immorality, to counter balance the government's injustice without thinking that for equality comes mutual respect. Aung San Suu Kyi's speech on the other hand is the complete opposite! Her philosophy is the belief that the government is what is causing the chaos, and it is up to the individual to gradually stand up to it, for good morals will eventually prevail. This is a far more mature approach to rebellion because, as she puts it, "despite all set-backs the condition of the man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement," meaning that she believes that the ethical good of the people will eventually prevail with gradualistic rebellion. Malcolm is not speaking on an ethical level, but is trying to rally minorities, and especially the black race, to follow his philosophy of causing chaos until the end of segregation. Although this strategy is effective, in that government has no choice but to choose the non-violent option, it is immature. It is as though Malcolm's strategy is a younger brother who will annoy the older brother, government, until the younger brother gets what he wants. In this situation, the older brother only resents the younger brother even more, so likewise, "the ballot or the bullet" is more so causes disrespect for the black race from society. According to Aung San Suu Kyi's speech, she believes that it is not about getting a policy changed, but a society changed. In terms of my brother hypothetical, the younger brother instead is compromising with the older brother, and talking on an emotionally respectful level so that the younger brother can get what he wants. Aung San Suu Kyi's approach to reform is all about gradually getting government to change ideologically. Because of this, to actually make a change in government, the government must know it's people's struggles to make change, and accept that government itself can't be selfish. This approach to reform is very passive, for it is about getting respect from the government to make a change.

So in conclusion, Malcolm X's strategy may be effective for quick change, in the long run it isn't effective towards gaining the respect of society and government. Since Aung San Suu Kyi's strategy is more gradualistic, it will take longer for change, but government will become more honest and moral for it. So I believe passive is the better choice through reform, because it changes the ideology of government, rather than just it's policy.

Prince or Peasant?

Would you rather be the Prince of Complacency or Peasant of Prevalence? According to Machiavelli it is "wisest" to define your people. It is "wisest" to put up a facade of a perfect man. It is "wisest" to be feared. However for Thoreau, a Peasant of Prevalence is one who must let go of family, love, money, and home for change. Because Machiavelli is addressing the leader's conservatism, and Thoreau is addressing the individual's activism, they both share concepts of power, but are directed towards different audiences.

Power of government is the defining feature in how one can gain independence, or dependence. To Thoreau, having money, and a home, and a family, only increases one’s dependence on government. Thoreau sees this as as a comfortable lifestyle, and therefore a selfish lifestyle, for this lifestyle is one that needs government to survive. One who would rather live in complacency than advocate change, is therefore one who is too dependent on government. So all in all, Thoreau believes independent power for the individual comes from the lack of government, for through a lack of government, one may make their own decisions. In Machiavelli's case, he says the same to princes. It is through your power and royalty, that you given the right to independence. As a prince, you are the one to make decisions on the people's behalf. You may take counsel, but a good prince is one that makes his own decisions. Although only princes are given all the power, much like Thoreau, Machiavelli is encouraging for princes to be dependent on no one.

Both of these roles can also be flipped. The Prince of Complacency is one who ignores their people’s suffering, and one who is ignorant of their state’s key problems. Similarly, the Peasant of Prevalence is one who must have no government to make changes in a government they don’t follow. So ironically both are either unable to hear, or are unable to be heard. To be a Prince of Complacency, one must use fear to gain the respect to rule people. And likewise, to be a Peasant of Prevalence, one must have confidence to rebel leaders. Despite both are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they both share playing on people’s pluck.