The significance of self-immolation for a political movement
Aaron Bushnell, the 25-year-old who set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy. Image courtesy: LinkedIn
On February 25th, at approximately 12:58pm, an active-duty U.S. Air Force member set himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., in protest of the current conflict in Gaza. With his last words being ‘Free Palestine’, the global reception of the act has transgressed through almost every media publication and digital platform with feelings of despair and condolence.
Aaron Bushnell, 25, declared in his final moments that we ‘will no longer be complicit in genocide’ noting how his extreme act of protest in contrast to the experiences of those in Palestine will not be considered ‘extreme at all’. Yet, this tragic incident has sparked discourse that questions the legitimacy of such an act of revolution, primarily by dismissing the act as a result of mental health issues. So, to what extent is self-immolation considered a legitimate form of political protest?
Self-immolation as a form of political protest, to most of the contemporary youth, would leave a scarring impression. Yet, its long-stretched history has been a significant symbol of political protest through modern global conflicts.
A prominent example was orchestrated by Thich Quang Duc, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who set himself alight in Saigon in response to the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam. At the time, this was supported by the United States of America. The reception of the image that spread around the U.S. evoked a deep questioning of the American liberty that was so incessantly preached, and sparked widespread protests against religious persecution in Vietnam. As a result, on November 1st, 1963, a coup against President Diem was orchestrated by the CIA, and he was assassinated the following day. There is no denying self-immolation’s butterfly effect on geopolitics and social change, prompting the removal of brutal dictators and regimes.
Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc is doused with gasoline during a protest demonstration in Saigon on June 11th 1963. Image courtesy: Malcolm Browne—AP
With this in mind, at a time when actions against institutions involve sit-ins, marches, and glueing one’s self to walls and roads, there comes the question of the currency of such a grave act of action. A concrete, yet debatable, answer is the severe depth of helplessness that grows during and after the act of self-immolation. Professor Ralph Young explains the feeling ‘that there’s nothing you can do, or that people are willing to do, so this is the ultimate sacrifice–yourself’. Such a grave act of protest outwardly suggests that contemporary justice movements and political institutions are not doing enough, leaving the global community in shock.
A case in history that parallels Bushnell’s self-immolation is that of Jan Palach. On January 16th, 1969, Palach sacrificed himself in an attempt to publicly expose the brutal Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, after what is historically known as the Prague Spring. Palach called for the resignation of several Soviet-supporting members of parliament, arguing that ‘our demands are not extreme’. This case symbolises the urgency for a turning point toward a future that does not involve such brutality and heartbreak.
Public gathering for Palach’s Funeral in Wenceslas Square, Prague. Image courtesy: Milon Novotny
Palach’s sacrifice holds several ties in emotion and tone to that of Bushnell’s, calling for the cease of conflict and death for those who are subjected to unspeakable violence and unproductive politicking. Journalist Belen Fernandez highlights the danger and disrespect of implying such acts are a result of mental illness, rather than ‘someone making the most cogent and defiant political point in response to an extremely mentally disturbing political reality’.
According to a study by the National Institutes of Health, self-immolation should be considered a valid mental health issue, like any other desire to commit suicide. However, there is arguably a need to acknowledge the links between self-immolation at the hands of political martyrdom, and attempts to undermine its significance. As these two routinely become linked, the accusations of mental illness directed so heavily towards those who self-immolate not only diminishes the death of the martyr, but also the validity of their reasonings.
Yet, with an act as delicate as self-immolation, there are dangers of dishonouring the individual whilst attempting to define the legitimacy and meaning of the act undertaken. As we continue to live through deep political unrest, we can only continue to mourn and think of those who are lost and hope for some light at the end of a very dark tunnel.