Does Peaceful Protest Have An Effect On Our Governments?

Éomer of Rohan

I was just scnning through a lot of random posts and I came across one in the Northern Regional section based along these lines, so I thought I would shift it over here.

So much has been said about Saddam Hussein and how it is evil that he is a dictator to his people and so on - but when I think hard about it, is Blair not an elected dictator to his people also? You may laugh and scorn the idea of an 'elected' dictator but really, does the British Government listen to protests and so on? Does the Irish Government? American?

Back in 1985, in Northern Ireland, landmark changes were being made and a new Anglo-Irsh Agreement was being drawn up...needless to say that Paisley and the Unionists weren't happy about it and protested away to their hearts content - natuarraly enough the 'Iron Lady' steadfastly ignored them and the Agreement was signed.

Before that, consider the Miner's Strike and the Winter of Discontent and so forth; Thatcher broke the British Trade Unions, smashed their real power against the will of so many thousands of people.

Lately, this question has hinged on the Anti-War issue and the demonstration of February 15th; I was on Cool FM radio telling the country that I believed protest could make a difference because this government was particularly fond of PR and votes - but I was lying to engender support amongst the public; I don't think that any amount of people, whether it be 2 million in London (effectively 4% of the national electorate!!) or 20,000 in Belfast will make a shred of difference - Bush will live up his poodle nickname and will throw English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish boys to their deaths in a war that America wants and no on else (assuming that every other nation on the SC supporting a war does so because of the near exorbitant bribes offered as 'trade incentives' which is a fairly safe bet IMO).

The question remains, can we, in peaceful protest, change the attitude of a government? How many people must protest for this to happen? If peaceful protest no longer has an effect, can violent protest, concerted action against the arms of the state, be considered? Why / Why not?

This is ultimately a very important question for within it lies the real answer to whether or not we live in a democracy of any kind rather than what I like to term an 'elected dictatorship.'

Éomer of Rohan

If peaceful protest no longer has an effect, can violent protest, concerted action against the arms of the state, be considered? Why / Why not?

I genuinely think it is time that our populations woke up to the fact that power is not in their hands as it should be; people are too apathetic to start new political groupings when the old ones fail and so the old ones drag on and the % of the population using their votes falls lower and lower - voters see they are not changing things and thus politics becomes stale, without the radicals taking part, without intelligent people with bright new ideas coming to the fore as they should; the system stagnates.

Is violence necessary? I don't know the answer to that. I would think that violence against people is unnecessary and wrong and I would disagree with the use of such violence. On the other hand, witty things like taking the head off Margret Thatchers Statue and giving ol' Winston a mohawk (!!!!) could be considered acceptable forms of protest when the government is being intransigent, no? I am being more radical than usual because I feel people need to consider this very carefully.

The other question regarding violence regards the police and army. What happens when baton-armed police in riot gear are drafted in to contain a riot? I am sure each of you have watched the scenes where the people behind are pushing the people in front into the police just by the sheer wait of being there and then the police line gives while one officer batons a man or men to the ground - it happens nearly every (now) G8 summit. Is such armed supervision dangerous to all concerned and just the knee jerk reaction of a reactionary government? Riot police and the horse gaurds and riot vans armed with water cannon WILL NOT stop such a protests, they would inflame things to the point where it is likely a policeman could be hauled off his horse and beaten to death (and I do not say this lightly for my father and uncle are both senior police officers) - something which is a tragic occurence but would be unnecessary, ultimately, if all governments did what they were paid such high wages to do and listened to their people, no?

Biffa Bacon

You may laugh and scorn the idea of an 'elected' dictator but really, does the British Government listen to protests and so on? Does the Irish Government? American? You may laugh and scorn the idea of an 'elected' dictator but really, does the British Government listen to protests and so on? Does the Irish Government? American?

Of course they listen to protests, just not on every issue.

If peaceful protest no longer has an effect, can violent protest, concerted action against the arms of the state, be considered? Why / Why not?

I would say yes it can be considered, even against a democratic government, if you feel that what the government is doing is so gravely immoral that violence is justified.

On the other hand, witty things like taking the head off Margret Thatchers Statue and giving ol' Winston a mohawk (!!!!) could be considered acceptable forms of protest when the government is being intransigent, no?

In my opinion? No, not really. That’s just vandalism.

The other question regarding violence regards the police and army. What happens when baton-armed police in riot gear are drafted in to contain a riot? I am sure each of you have watched the scenes where the people behind are pushing the people in front into the police just by the sheer wait of being there and then the police line gives while one officer batons a man or men to the ground - it happens nearly every (now) G8 summit. Is such armed supervision dangerous to all concerned and just the knee jerk reaction of a reactionary government?

Personally I dislike the tendency for the police to try and control or contain a riot or cause the rioters to disperse. I believe that rioters should be forcibly suppressed and arrested en masse. There is no need for riot police to form lines or put up security barriers with the aim of preventing a riot before it starts – just let the demonstrators march on and if any break the law, then you swoop in and arrest them. Of course there should be riot police in close proximity on standby ready to do this, but I don’t believe in using them to prevent a riot breaking out.

Btw I voted “Nove of the above” in the poll. You should have included a “Yes, sometimes” option.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

antrophy

DIRECT ACTION AND FIGHTING TO WIN.



Anarchists are not particularly interested in protesting against the evils of the world - we would prefer to abolish them! Political parties, of both left and right, are happy to make statements and mount ineffectual protests that are intended to achieve little more than a bigger profile for their own party. And when their party gets big enough they will sort out everything for us.

That might be alright for those who merely want to change their rulers. It holds no appeal for anarchists who want to abolish the division of people into bosses and workers, rulers and ruled.

There is a very real connection between the means you use and what you end up with. Thirty years ago a British libertarian organisation called Solidarity summed it up very well: Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification.

Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

As well as working for a complete change in the way society is run, we all have to live in the here and now. We try to stop things getting worse (cutbacks, new charges, wage restraint, etc.) and we struggle for what improvements can be achieved.

Anarchists have been active in the growing movement against war. We have used our paper to explain why war is not in the interest of ordinary working people and have made suggestions for taking that movement forward.

Marching around Belfast, Cork or Dublin to show opposition to war is not going to stop it. This doesn't mean that public demonstrations have no role to play. They can draw attention to an issue, they can bring likeminded people together and break down the media induced feeling of being in a tiny minority.

But getting a few thousand names on a petition or even a few thousand people on the streets will not make the government change its mind about anything it considers important. Nor will 'witnessing' for justice or small stunts. There is little point in appealing to the 'decency' of politicians who have interests diametrically opposed to our own.

Ireland's contribution to the war for oil is allowing the use of Shannon airport for refueling US military airplanes on their way to the Gulf. Surely then, the key task for anti-war activists is to stop this. Ahearn, Harney and their pals won't tell George Bush that Shannon is closed to his war machines.

We can either rely on 'public opinion' (which is ignored when it suits our rulers - health cuts being a prime example) or we can take action ourselves. A few thousand people at Shannon Airport taking down the fence and sitting around the military planes, if repeated a few times, would probably be enough to see them off. If this happened Shannon wouldn't be exactly the most secure location for servicing troop carriers and bombers.

Of course the state could respond by mobilising every spare Garda they could find and maybe even some Irish soldiers - but that would be a big risk for them. It would lead to a lot more people taking sides, and the chance of a big demonstration breaking through a major force of cops would be very damaging to their authority.

The choice is between impotent protesting and fighting to win. Protests can be used to build a large confident movement or they can become just an end in themselves. A good example is the success of the campaign which won the abolition of the water charges. There were those who told us to trust the 'better' politicians, to vote differently, to leave it to them.

They were irrelevant to what happened. Socialists and anarchists went into their own neighbourhoods and built a mass movement based on non-payment. They didn't ask anyone to do anything for them - they did it themselves. And it worked. The government had to cave in and the tens of thousands who had resisted the legal threats and refused to pay got a small taste of their potential power when they get together.

Today a similar movement is being built against the bin tax. And it is growing fast because a lot of people know that we can win. There are no certain victories but the experience of the water charges shows that winning is possible.

If we really want to change the world (no small task!!!) we need two things: a huge number of people who understand the alternative that could be created, and the confidence that they can do it. We attach particular importance to struggles that can be victorious, and we insist that that mass participation and real democracy are essential. It is out of the confidence that you taste in victory that we can begin to inspire people to start to take control back over their own lives. We want people to be empowered into being individuals who dispense with the idea of being led anywhere, and who feel in control to decide and determine their own destinies. These victories as well as giving us gains now, they also prepare us for the bigger battles of the future.

We have no need for small groups of wanna-be leaders to do things for us. Everyone involved should have the opportunity to play a full part in making the decisions. Afterall, isn't socialism essentially about who makes decisions - the few or the many.

Alan MacSimoin


More articles and arguments like this from the Worker's Solidarity Movement Site

Éomer of Rohan

Re Anarchists.

Two words.

Russia. Spain.

Re Political Policy Statements

Since when are we allowed to make party political broadcasts LOL - oh wait, communal political broadcasts since I know anarchists don't generally form parties.

antrophy

Not really enthuased about getting into a debate over the failure of the Russian and Spanish revolution, college exams are fastly approaching, and i should be delving into other aspects of history. But, for the sake of it I'd direct peopel to some very interesting reading on the topic of Russia, something i came across in booklet form by Maurice Brinton, a member of an organisation of libertarian marxists which split from the Healyite Socialist Labour League, called Solidarity which dissolved in the late 1970's read the 'Bolsheviks and Workers Control' here.

Also on Spain, i'd direct people towards Anarchism In Action a text on the successes and failures of Spain's revolution. There is also a vast index of texts on Spain here and on Russia here.

If people are then interested in pursuing a debate with you, let them. I myself due to a number of restrictions with time haven't the time to enter into a debate that can do justice to the topic without keeping it at a basic level of sniping over Kronstadt, a full and proper debate would require an examination of the Workers Opposition, the nature of the bolshevik organisational methods and how they isolated the party from the class, the bureacratisation of the Factory Commitees and the assimilation of the unions by the Bolshevik State Appartus.

Russia is not just a simple equation of Lenin + Trotsky = goog and stalin =bad.

With an understanding of the complexity of failings of Russia, we can then see how the Spanish Experience can't be just be explained by the lack of a revolutionary party as most Trots argue. It was such a party that led to the new dictatership in Russia. We would have to look at the mistakes of the CNT and would require an examination of the role of the Stalinists in attacking the collectives, cutting off arms to the anarcho militias and suppressing organisations of the left, like the POUM and more. Much of the criticism i'm sure you'd raise would also have been raised by anarchist militants like Durritti during the course of the revolutions events, something you'd write out of the debate.

Excellant debates with a wide cross section of people on these topics have already taken place in the Anarchism and Leninism Debate

and the Kronsdstadt Debate which has a member of the SP contribute on another forum.

We are here to discuss the role of protest in Irish political life at the moment, and it is in that spirit i posted that article as a contribution to the debate, not as a party political broadcast, as i am not a WSM member.

Éomer of Rohan

Come now, all these links are a bit of a cop out, no? Fair enough however, I shall consider this debate closed wrt Anarchism which I would gladly rip apart for its inadequacies.

antrophy

Not really a cop out, just a realisation that we could clog this board up with arguments about Kronstadt and the workers opposition for years, and we would still be left with the fact that we have yet to decide what role public protest has in secular civil society at the moment.

That is the issue at hand here, if you want to 'gladly rip apart for its inadequacies' anything, then maybe it should be the perspective outlined in that arguement I posted earlier, other than that, we can go into the arguments about the class composition and nature of the Stalinist Block some other day? Sound reasonable?

davelerave

we're dependent on britain and the usa for our national security,where does that leave us if bertie takes a moral stand.we're not really a player on the world scene i think he has to push for a diplomatic solution privately ,but if we take a public stance against the war it's probably not very wise in the real political world

antrophy

Well, how exactly are we dependent upon them for National Security? Remember during WW2 one of the main threats to Irish national security came from an american led plan to invade Ireland, for it's use as a strategic military base in the run up to D-Day, the British had to advise against the idea, seeing as how such an undertaking from the allies would bring up memories of a previous occupation, a little too fresh in the minds of many.

Another argument often put forward is that of American led job creation in Ireland, and us Paddies upsetting our friends in US corporations.

But shifting investment from one country to another is not as easy as moving pieces on a chessboard. You have to build a factory, set up equipment, train workers and put infrastructure in place. That all costs money. US multinationals are in this country because they can make more profit here than anywhere else (remember, Intel is a business, not a job-creation agency). The chances are, theyll stay in Ireland as long as that remains the case; when things change, of course, theyll move abroad no matter how loyal our government has been to Uncle Sam. In any case, US investment has been a mixed blessing. Its left us totally exposed to downturns in the US economy beyond our control. If we need low-wage, non-union jobs, theres plenty of Irish businessmen willing to oblige.

The truth is, Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney look to Washington for ideology, not investment. Criticising Bush would be as painful for them as it would be for Desmond Connell to denounce the Pope. This is why they wont breathe a word of protest, unless we force them too.

<<To Rohan>>

Well, I have to say curiousity got the better of me...go on and rip anarchism to pieces, i'm sure i'll hear plenty of new things. I've outlined a number of things, briefly sketched albeit in relation to Spain and Russia, you've remained stumped?

davelerave

we depend on the RAF we have no planes of our own ,it came up in the dail a few days ago

Sand

Protests, especially on less than vital issues, will never hold the attention of politicians like their next electoral campaign. Thats just the reality, when the next general election comes around it wont matter who was protesting when and where because quite simply it wont be an election issue for the vast majority of people. Thus its the nature of democracy that change comes gradually - this change of pace isnt often fast enough for radical groups and it isnt always going in the direction they want it to go but that doesnt give them any greater moral right.

Violent protest against a government? /me shrugs - Thats when governments with mandates given to them by the people break out the tear gas, batons and dogs to deal with angry mobs with delusions of a mandate.

The real problem is that you equate a protest group/mob with "the people". The government equate the votes they won in a free and fair election with "the people". In my opinion the government tends to have the greater claim to speak for the people.

Of course the state could respond by mobilising every spare Garda they could find and maybe even some Irish soldiers - but that would be a big risk for them. It would lead to a lot more people taking sides, and the chance of a big demonstration breaking through a major force of cops would be very damaging to their authority.

It would just harden attitudes on both sides in my opinion. The protestors would have their nemesis to fight the good fight against and the government wouldnt be able to back down without admitting it was wrong to call in a heavy security presence to deal with the protestors in the first place - not that they would be wrong if a demonstration were to use the violence it would take to break through a major force of the elected governments law enforcement.

DadaKopf

Antrophy, are you Finbar Dwyer?

antrophy

'The real problem is that you equate a protest group/mob with "the people". The government equate the votes they won in a free and fair election with "the people". In my opinion the government tends to have the greater claim to speak for the people.'

Must i really respond to this nonesense?

Well what mandate exactly or 'claim to speak for the people' does our beloved government have? At this stage it is a commonly accepted reality that, fianna fail have broken the mandate they were given in the last election with their retreat on economic issues, the health service and so on.

The conservative establishment has responded to the days of protest with admirable honesty: theyve openly rejected democracy. Not in so many words, of course, but reading their statements attentively can leave us with no other conclusion. One of the most frequently heard arguments was this: we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. Politicians have the right to make decisions they believe to be in the national interest, which is pretty much the same argument youre using.

Its no wonder the world is in such a mess when basic democratic ideas can be misrepresented so blatantly. In a representative democracies, people promise to do certain things to the best of their abilities; people vote for them accordingly and they have a mandate. If they break this mandate, they are no longer legitimate representatives of the popular will. Politicians dont have the right to do whatever the hell they like when in power; thats not democracy, just the dictatership of an elected monarchy or aristocracy. This should be the ABC of any civilised society, but its obviously foreign to anyone in positions of power. Which is something Rousseau highlighted when he decribed how we are only free for one day, the day of voting after that were enslaved.

Since none of the politicians supporting Bush mentioned Iraq in their electoral campaigns, they have no mandate, exactly the same with the present Irish establishment.

Of course, as we live in a fallacy of democracy, where we have no means to directly hold our representatives accountable while in power, they can trample all over our freedoms, throw out advances for the citizen, like the Freedom of Information act and we can only sit back and watch, waiting till the next election, where we vote in someother ruler, say Labour this time, who decide to go into coalition with Fianna Fail, the populace sits up and asks- they never mentined coalition when seeking a mandate? Sit back and watch the process unfold again....




*antrophy breaks out in tune to Yellow Submarine*

We all live in a failed democracy......A failed democracy......A failed democracy....:D

But contrary to Sand, voting isnt the only way of expressing your opinion; eighteenth-century republicans like Jefferson and Paine werent playing games when they established freedom of speech and freedom of assembly as basic democratic rights. Exercising these rights, through opinion polls and mass protests, the people of Ireland, Britain, Italy and elsewhere have made their views crystal clear: no war, no way.

One audacious argument was offered to get Blair and Bush out of this hash: apparently, as men with a strong Christian faith, they believe themselves to be accountable to a higher power. Now, this sort of logic may well be enshrined in the Iranian constitution, but its place in a secular democracy is questionable to say the least (God seems to have spoken anyway, and hes against the war, at least if the Pope is to be believed, or the Archbishop of Canterbury). In this new millinea are we to be governed according to a reason (or lack therefore of) which looks to the ancien regime and the doctrine of the devine right of kings for inspiration.

Theres only one way of looking at the situation: any politician who continues to support war is an avowed enemy of democracy, in any meaningful sense of the term. Even such spokespeople for 'radical groups' like the Catholic Church in South Africa, namely Bishop Desmond Tutu said 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.'

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. It is time we organised a national campaign of civil disobedience, and FORCED this government to listen to its citizens.

The issue at hand here is irrelevant, maybe war is one of those 'less than vital issues', but this argument applies across the board, be it apartheid, discrimination in the north, student fees or the bin tax and PAYE marches of the 1970's. It is more than a debate on war, but one of teh relationship between the state, the nature of representative bureaucracy and its relationship to the citizen.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So much has been said about Saddam Hussein and how it is evil that he is a dictator to his people and so on - but when I think hard about it, is Blair not an elected dictator to his people also? You may laugh and scorn the idea of an 'elected' dictator but really, does the British Government listen to protests and so on? Does the Irish Government? American?'

Unfortunately your poll options jump from "Yes, all the time" to "Not really". There are hundreds of responses in between.

Governments do listen to peaceful protests, except when they have such a large majority that they don't feel obliged to, as exemplified by the Blair government.

Gearoid

My own answer to this one is that the government will only listen to protests when it suits them. we have already seen how the government here and Mary Harney in particular have turned the recent anti-war protest march around by saying that they supported it! It is this type of thing I can't understand becuse most of the people were protesting at Ireland's part in helping the US send its military to Iraq!

The Corinthian

I love these left-wing bitch-slapping sessions. It's like a catfight with goaties

Remember during WW2 one of the main threats to Irish national security came from an american led plan to invade Ireland,

strange, i've never heard of this before. Know any reliable links for this?

antrophy

"the approaches which the southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This indeed was a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland, we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera, or perish from the earth. However, with a restraint and poise to which, I venture to say, history will find few parallels, His MajestyÂ’s Government never laid a violent hand upon them, though at times it would have been quite easy and quite natural, and we left the de Valera Government to frolic with the German and later with the Japanese representatives to their heartÂ’s content" -Churchill's victory boadcast.

Theres a tiny bit of history on plan here

but i cant think of the actual name of the plan, so its a bit difficult to dig up material on it.

But will get some more stuff for you on it, i realise the above is flimsy none the less but the idea was floated.

Sand

Must i really respond to this nonesense?

Nah, dont feel obliged to write a rather large reply to it. Oh wait, too late.

Well what mandate exactly or 'claim to speak for the people' does our beloved government have? At this stage it is a commonly accepted reality that, fianna fail have broken the mandate they were given in the last election with their retreat on economic issues, the health service and so on.

They won the general election. Polls do not invalidate general elections. What you think doesnt invalidate general elections.

Politicians dont have the right to do whatever the hell they like when in power; thats not democracy, just the dictatership of an elected monarchy or aristocracy.

Most politicians have an eye to the next general election, which constrains their actions. If a politician breaks his mandate, and yet is re-elected then the people have gotten the government they wanted and clearly deserve. Again, what you think doesnt invalidate the general election.

Since none of the politicians supporting Bush mentioned Iraq in their electoral campaigns, they have no mandate, exactly the same with the present Irish establishment.

I dont recall crystal balls being standard issue for candidates - in any election.

where we vote in someother ruler, say Labour this time, who decide to go into coalition with Fianna Fail, the populace sits up and asks- they never mentined coalition when seeking a mandate? Sit back and watch the process unfold again....

Youre unhappy with the choices so you sit back and bitch about it - way to make the world a better place? Provide another party that people can vote for then, make a little more than the "Were against everything" Party and you might just stand a chance at an election.

Sure its not easy, but then youre sitting on a lot of discontent with the established parties, which has seen a lot of smaller parties do well, even a bunch of semi-retired terrorists are now viewed as electable.

But contrary to Sand, voting isnt the only way of expressing your opinion;

It is probably the best way though. Joining a large mob which has a huge variety of views with conflicting understandings of why theyre protesting and of varying commitment isnt an accurate way for anyone to take a barometer of opinion, even of the several thousand or so who show up out of a population of millions - it does provide the fringe parties and their supporters with large scale phantom support, phantom because they claim theyre representing the mob but when it comes to voting time..... their fringe status is confirmed.

'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.'

Agreed, completely and absolutely. This is why I feel we should become pro-active in toppling Saddam and building a better, freer Iraq. Others wish to remain neutral.

It is time we organised a national campaign of civil disobedience, and FORCED this government to listen to its citizens.

Go ahead and organise it then. Its getting to life of brian proportions here. I honestly believe you wont get any sort of support for it beyond the heartlands of university campuses, but I dont think a student "strike" is going to bring bertie down - whats more, Bertie doesnt believe it either or he wouldnt think he could rent out Shannon and get re-elected next time around.

. It is more than a debate on war, but one of teh relationship between the state, the nature of representative bureaucracy and its relationship to the citizen.

Agreed, and whilst a citizen can use their rights of free speech and assembly mobs cannot use violent protests against the democratically elected government, the only institution a mandate from the people.

we have already seen how the government here and Mary Harney in particular have turned the recent anti-war protest march around by saying that they supported it!

Which demostrates why mobs cant be taken as an accurate gauge on an issue.