Emmeline Pankhurst and Martin Luther King are famous political activists fighting for human rights. They play crucial roles in different movements. To my mind, Emmeline Pankhurst is a more effective leader. This essay will demonstrate their similarities being a leader as well as differences in terms of ways of gaining rights, public images and achievements. And I will give reasons of the similarities and differences. In addition, I will explain why in my opinion Emmeline Pankhurst is a more effective leader. At the end of the essay, I will make a conclusion.
Born in different times, the two civil-rights leaders who differ in gender and color share something in common. Both of them came from middle-class family. And their parents had great impact on them. They received good education, which laid foundation for their political pursuit and leadership in the movements. Besides, they established WSPU and SCLC respectively and led the members to protest for equality. During the movements, they had been arrested for more than once and been badly treated in prison. Instead of compromising and giving up, the two were always in the forefront of fighting. Both of them made a lot sacrifices. Martin Luther King even lost his life for his career.
For them, the most significant difference is their ways of gaining rights. Emmeline Pankhurst resorted to violence. She founded Women’s Social and Political Union which was quite an aggressive and radical group throughout the protests. They committed arson, smashed windows and destroyed property. When they were arrested, they went on hunger strikes, which led to force-feedings. But Martin Luther King advocated non-violence. “His policy of nonviolent protest, was the dominant force in the civil-rights movement during its decade of greatest achievement, from 1957 to 1968” (The life of Martin Luther King Jr, 2017).
The sharp distinction between them was mainly caused by their family background. Emmeline’ parents and husbands were all supportive of women’s suffrage and liberal. When she was just 14 years old, her mother took her to her first women’s suffrage meeting. However, King’s father was a pastor who believed in Christianity. “He is best known for his role in the advancement of civil rights using nonviolent civil disobedience based on his Christian beliefs”(The life and achievements of Martin Luther King Jr, 2015). His religion belief along with Gandhi’s non-violent advocacy had great impact on him.
In addition, Emmeline Pankhurst and Martin Luther King are also different in public image. Martin Luther King was a civil-rights leader with good reputation, especially when the world-famous speech, “I Have a Dream”, was delivered. Time magazine designated him as its Person of the Year for 1963. And he was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Compared with King, Emmeline Pankhurst’s image did not remain consistent through the history. According to Maria (2018), although it drew huge amounts of publicity, many people were critical of WSPU’s deeds. So as the leader of a “militant” group, Emmeline Pankhurst was no doubt criticized by the public and the media for their wild behaviours. But things were different after the World War I. When the war came, what she did was “charging to the very government that had denied women the vote” (Rollyson, 2003). Due to the contributions in the war, her image gradually transformed from a fanatical suffragette into a hero fighting for her country and women’s rights.
Through their unremitting efforts, they have achieved some results in different degrees. Martin Luther King led the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott which eventually made the Supreme Court declare buses segregation unconstitutional. In 1957, Martin Luther King helped found the South Cristian Leadership Conference which helped black people fight for equality. In 1963, he organized a march on Washington where he delivered a far-reaching speech, “I Have a Dream”. The march promoted the pass of Civil Right Act. Emmeline Pankhurst campaigned for women’s rights to vote. In 1918, shortly after Emmeline Pankhurst joined the war, the government granted them limited voting rights. And in 1928, the parliaments finally allowed women to have the same voting rights as men, which meant that Emmeline Pankhurst achieved her goal eventually.
Emmeline Pankhurst’s aim was to help women get the vote. In 1928, the year of her death, women had the same voting rights as men, which proved her success in the fight with the government. Martin Luther King have made great contributions to the equality of black people in southern part. However, his peaceful way did not work well in the northern part. And there’s still a long way to go for black people to have equal rights. They are both great and inspiring leaders, but I think Emmeline Pankhurst is more effective.
She is a women with strategy and, most importantly, the ability to access the situation. This can be reflected in her two essential choices. The first choice is changing suffragists’ peaceful way into violence. This was risky, for violence always obtained little support. However, without publicity, the government would not attach great importance in the matter, so violence might be the most immediate and effective way to draw people’s attention at that time. The second crucial choice is giving up the fight and helping country with the war. The move was of great significance. On the one hand, it could transform her image and help gain more support, because she put country’s interest in the first place; on the other hand, the choice together with her previous radical behaviours could demonstrate that she was a wise woman who desperately expect equal rights rather than a crazy lady who might have lost her mind. According to Rollyson, “WSPU slogan during the war is that we buried the hatchet, but we know where to find it ’’ (2003). From it, we can see that the move also had its strategic meaning.
In conclusion, as leaders campaigning for human rights, Emmeline Pankhurst is more effective than Martin Luther King. Her ways of gaining rights and strategic insight make her finally achieve her goal. Martin Luther King is eloquent and persistent. But comparatively, he is not that flexible. During the course of the movement, he sticks to his non-violent way which does achieve certain results. However, sometimes a leader should change his or her strategy if it can not reach the final goal or gradually becomes ineffective, because with a movement advancing, the society and some important social factors are changing too.
References
Maria, Libelt (2018) The Militant Feminist Movement in England, 1900-1918. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/ (Accessed: 1 December 2019)
Rollyson, Carl (2003) A Conservative Revolutionary: Emmeline Pankhurst (1857-1928), Spring 2003. Vol.79 (2)
The life of Martin Luther King Jr. (2017) Available at: http://projects.seattletimes.com/mlk/bio.htm#life (Accessed: 1 December 2019).
The life and achievements of Martin Luther King Jr. (2015) Available at: https://newpittsburghcourier.com/ (Accessed: 1 December 2019)