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.