”How has leadership impacted the way young adults perceived injustice? Is nonviolence truly a powerful weapon? Has it influenced them to rebel? why or why not?”

Leadership, Injustice, and Nonviolence
Name
Institutional Affiliation

Although it is difficult to define justice accurately, it is easy to identify the various forms of injustices when they occur. Injustices are experienced in different forms that include violation of human rights and unequal distribution of resources. Politically, people perceive injustice when they are denied the rights to vote, denial of freedom of speech, lack of protection from cruel environment, unnecessary punishments and denial of rights to worship. In most cases, injustices in the society are as a result of unfair procedures that see people lacking their basic life necessities such and housing, medication and food (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2014). In the extreme cases of injustice, people suffer from poverty while the elite enjoy a luxurious life. Economic injustices mostly occur when there is unfair employment procedures, limited employment opportunities, poor health care and education. In more serious situations injustices lead to crimes against humanity and wars including genocide, slavery and torture (Peterson, 2014).
Leaders and activists have made an impact on the way young people perceive injustices. According to the activists, in order for the young people to address injustices, there is need for understanding the causes. Mostly, injustices are caused by economic pressures, social problems, underdevelopment and international situations. Truly, the causes of discrimination and other forms of injustices arise from complex and deep social, economic and political problems and it is only through understanding them and strengthening the civil societies that protection of human rights can occur (King, 2012). It is through the leaders that the young persons are able to understand the meaning of injustices. Injustices provoke powerful feelings to human beings and the more injustices people suffer, the more likely they are to get angry. In an environment where people are oppressed, it is not easy for them to keep quiet and hold discussions on what is fair and what is not fair. The feelings of oppression are contagious and are discussed among persons who end up forming rebel groups (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2014).
According to Martin Luther, justice can be acquired through use of nonviolence means. In his civil rights movement he could always interpret nonviolence resistance on different occasions. King believed that acquiring freedom from oppression through nonviolent ways was not a show of cowardice but a way of gaining friendship from the oppressor. Nonviolence is a means of fighting evil but not the people involved therefore in his movement, violence was highly prohibited. According to King (2012), nonviolence requires courage in order to face violent attacks since injustice is capable of attracting violent reactions or submission. He teaches the young people that through nonviolence, they are capable of resisting the urge to fight the oppressor. By the time Luther King came to believe that nonviolence would be effective, it was clear that violence would not solve any problem therefor it was not the best way for combating injustices. Philosophers argue that the principle of nonviolence does not lie on the end justifies the means but rather, the means should be as pure as the end. Kings argument is that that through nonviolence, the body remains passive while the mind is active on persuading the body to resist evil. Nonviolence means attacks the moral conscience and draws the attention of individuals into ensuring that that they do not respond to the situations that they are facing violently. In nonviolent situations, the resistors are passionate about the feelings just like the violent protestors are passionate about the protests. Just like the violent protestor is willing to risk his or her life in the attempt to urge the opponent, it is the same feeling that nonviolent resistant should feel but this should not be seen as cowardice. But as much as Luther King teaches on nonviolent protest, it is quite impossible for them to occur in the real life situations. This is because people react to situations when the damage is already done and the quest for defense against injustices is mostly insatiable and cruel. It is quite difficult for a hurt individual to apply a balanced solution when wrong things have been perpetrated against him or her. The problems that attract vengeance must be resolved through interactions between the victims, social groups and perpetrators. Therefore, in a society where activists are trying to eliminate violent reactions from the victims, there have to be social systems that effectively manage and contain people’s quest for revenge (Holtz & Harold, 2013).
Due to disobeying the law by leading political protests against unjust laws, Martin Luther was arrested April 1963 where he was not allowed to contact his lawyer for 24 hours. When he got a chance to view the outside world, he read on a newspaper that clergy men viewed demonstrations were unwise move. Luther took time to write a response letter where he argued that he and his fellow demonstrators were right and it was their duty to fight the injustices.. In his letter he says that he accepted criticism and sincerity of the clergy men who thought his activities were untimely and unwise. According to King, he wouldn’t accept to be rebuked and would teach them by answering each of their charges. He asserts that it is due to his organization that he was in Birmingham though he was referred to as an outsider. He smuggled the letter out of jail and when he was released, the letter was published in various periodicals and due to the letter’s effectiveness, it became the turning point for civil rights movement. He argues that his role in the as an activists is like that of apostles who travelled across the world to spread the gospel. He urges the US to unite as a single nation since the citizens have a purpose for the future. He admits that demonstration as disturbing to the community but further notes that injustices are worse and disturbing. He adds that his goal is negotiations but there have to be demonstrations in order to create tension and attract the attention of the issue for negotiation. He further explains that nonviolent protests include finding facts, negotiation, and self-purification and involve direct action. After passing the message to Birmingham officials, he concludes that action is required and he would so by leading public demonstrations, a decision that he would never regret.
From Luther King teachings on nonviolence, it is clear that it is not a weapon for the weak and that it strengthens the young people. It is clear that enemies are not worn by the use of force which is the reason why Luther King is polite to the state and the clergy men and is keen not to use violence. It is also clear that nonviolence would not cause the youth to rebel since they are taught to fight for righteous reasons. According to nonviolence terms, fighting against violence does not involve violence. According to Luther king, nonviolence is all about having spiritual principles that revolve around accepting suffering rather than causing sufferings (King, 2012).
Eric Fromm (2010) made a thesis on Disobedience as a psychological and moral problem. In the thesis, Fromm tries to understand the argument on whether disobedience is a virtue or a vice. He reviews the story of Adam and Eve and logically explains that it is as a result of their disobedience that mankind was gained freedom and independence. It is after leaving the garden that Adam and Eve became fully aware of themselves and became independent and power of a complete human being. He explores his argument by insisting that it is by leaving the realm of obedience that many communities are created. Fromm argues that it is intellectual development of individuals begin when they become disobedient and believes that disobedience marked the beginning of human life and history. In his thoughts, it occurred to Fromm that in the next 5-10 years, man will do away with civilization. It occurred to him that mistakes will be committed by people who believe in powers such as the church and for him to disobey, he ought to have courage and be fully developed and has capacity to utilize the power of disobedience. Fromm believes that if there is obedience is a virtue and disobedience a virtue, then there is a direct relationship between the two. For instance he argues that if there are two principles with differing opinions, if one is obeyed, the other one is automatically disobeyed. In a classic example, he explains that obeying the State laws may lead to may necessarily lead to disobedience of humanity laws. He gives an example of martyrs of freedom, science and region that in order for them achieve their goals, they had to disobey those who stopped them and obey the laws of humanity, their conscience and reason. He further adds that men who obey without disobedience are slaves while those who disobey and without obedience are rebels who act out of anger, resentment and disappointment. In most cases, people who obey the power of church and state feel somehow protected and safe, people are keen not to make errors because the social systems make decisions for them. The capacity in which one can display courage is dependent on his her state of development. The reason why people are unable to disobey power even when they face injustices is because since the historical era, they were made to believe that obedience is right while disobedience is wrong, consequently, they have to follow the majority. But this argument has an advantage that maybe there will come a time when the few might overthrow the power of the few. Fromm therefore enables us to understand the human conscience which is divided in the authoritarian and human conscious, in which the latter is about the rules that are seen as human and the former is about authorities that govern us. Consequently, it is clear that in most cases, authorities are meant for governing the uneducated who are unable to make informed decisions and are not aware of the happenings in the world and must be contained so that authorities can hold power (Fromm, 2010).

Annotated Bibliography
Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2014). Drop your weapons: When and why civil resistance works. Foreign Aff., 93, 94.
Civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance has been used as a weapon against oppressive regimes for ages. This paper presents a case for the use of civil resistance by the public and outlines various reasons and scenarios in which this technique may be effective at alleviating injustices. Further, Chenoweth and Stephan (2014) also indicate the role played by leaders in either motivating or suppressing perceptions of injustice.
Fromm, E. (2010). On disobedience: Why freedom means saying” no” to power.
Erich Fromm, a renowned US social philosopher and psychoanalyst, illustrated the significance of social disobedience as well as the true voice of the public in modern societies. On Disobedience provides proactive thoughts on the importance of dissent. The author connotes that human beings should learn and have the freedom to say no and refuse to conform to any unjustifiable principles of people in positions of authority. Apparently, such a position is fundamental to human societies to preserve humanity and recoup an unadulterated sense of self.
Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Interpersonal justice and deviance: The moderating effects of interpersonal justice values and justice orientation. Journal of Management, 39(2), 339-365.
Holtz and Harold (2013) paint a clear picture of the relationship between interpersonal justice and deviance, albeit in the workplace. Accordingly, the authors argue that the adiption of justice-related values have a considerable effect on mitigating the ensuing perceptions of justice and any other potential upshots. This research supports the assertion that leadership indeed influences perceptions of injustice and can take specific measures to extinguish them.
King Jr, M. L. (2012). Letter from Birmingham jail. Liberating faith: Religious voices for justice, peace, & ecological wisdom, 177-187.
Martin Luther King Jr, wrote an open letter on the 16th of April, 1963 in which he defends the nonviolent resistance movement that had emerged in the United States. In the letter, Luther specifically stated the right and moral obligation bestowed upon the public to counter and break unjust laws, as well as take direct retaliatory actions as opposed to remaining silent and waiting for justice to be served through the legal systems. He also argues that the prevalence of injustice threatens the very notion of justice in all regions and fields. This letter serves as a justification for the use of nonviolent protests in cases where injustice is rife as well as the role of poor leadership in triggering such uprisings. Luther’s letter was the aftermath of rampant racial discrimination in the US, which was particularly conducted and endorsed by the state.
Peterson, B. A. (2014). Nonviolent action as a necessary component in educating for democracy. Democracy and Education, 22(1), 2.
This paper provides an overview of the democratic process, the leadership’s role in it, and the implication of nonviolence in propagating the principles of democracy. The author argues that the public can indeed grasp useful lessons from nonviolent actions since such strategies focus on the core issues as opposed to violent means that often masquerade as revolutionary actions but, in the real sense, serve the purposes of a select few.

References
Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2014). Drop your weapons: When and why civil resistance works. Foreign Aff., 93, 94.
Fromm, E. (2010). On disobedience: Why freedom means saying” no” to power.
Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Interpersonal justice and deviance: The moderating effects of interpersonal justice values and justice orientation. Journal of Management, 39(2), 339-365.
King Jr, M. L. (2012). Letter from Birmingham jail. Liberating faith: Religious voices for justice, peace, & ecological wisdom, 177-187.
Peterson, B. A. (2014). Nonviolent action as a necessary component in educating for democracy. Democracy and Education, 22(1), 2.