Authorities enforce rules. The rules enforced might or might not be received by the subjects. In most cases, the oppressive rules are made to benefit the minority who are in power at the expense of the majority. Oppressive rules are rules that are not popular to the subjects. They have a characteristic of letting the majority being USED to maximize gain on the part of the few who are in power. As a result, the subjects could find a way of protesting against oppressive rule. The question at hand is whether to use violent or nonviolent methods of protesting. Nonviolent methods are peaceful and intelligently expressed (Hedican 2013, p. 234). They include the use of dialogue and official communication to bring both parties to an understanding. On the other hand, violent methods involve the use of force to get demands. They are associated with destruction of property as well as acute misunderstanding with the authority.

The use of violent methods of eliminating oppressive rule is common in many organizations as well as countries. Violence was used by many nations in the world to acquire independence from their colonizers. It has succeeded in many instances. However, it has ADVERSE effects on  subjects as well as the authorities. It has led to loss of life of the subjects, as a result, of the defensive mechanism used by the authority. In addition, the category of methods has led to destruction of property (Tripp 2013, p. 56). As a result, SEVERAL concerned world organizations are calling for the use of a better method of protesting against oppressive rule. In relation to that, the authorities involved do identify key participants in the events and subject them to punishment. Most authorities or managements are always opposed to protesting of their rules. Some organizations respond to the nonviolent methods while some act best in response to violent methods.

The object in this case is the method of getting rid of oppressive rule. The acceptability of the method is determined by several factors. Some organizations and countries practice dictatorship. In such a situation, the authorities do not use the views of the majority or the public to come up with policies that are accepted. Such authorities would not even allow the subjects to comment on the policies being enforced. In fact, they would even use force to stabilize the situation. Subjects could apply a method of protesting against the oppressive rule in order to call for a rectification for the subject matter (Moore 2008, p. 34). The first option is usually nonviolent method. Otherwise, if that fails, the violent methods come. More so, an organization that comes up with an oppressive rule on the subjects is aware and would not encourage opposition to the matter. As a result, subjects resort to violent methods as they are louder than nonviolent methods. If there were a good relationship between the subjects and the authority, violent methods would be irrelevant.

The main evaluation claim is that the authorities make the oppressive rules intentionally. A stable and democratic organization collects the views of the public and subjects before making a conclusion. They would then analyze the requirements of the majority. The final rule would face minimal opposition from the subjects (Hedican 2013, p. 67). On the other hand, organization and countries that practice dictatorship do not collect the views of their subjects in making policies. As a result, they might come up with rules that are not accepted by the majority. In such cases, the authorities are aware of the oppressive rules that they impose on their subjects. In fact, they use much force in enforcing the oppressive policies. It would be impossible to succeed with nonviolent methods of protesting in dictatorship cases. The most effective method in such cases is violent methods of protesting.

I hope it helps you

Please mark me as brainiest