'Not in my name' Pic: Rightee on Flickr
Scottish left-wing political blogger Shuggy had a good post up about the G20 demonstrations that took place in London a couple of weeks ago. I think that he’s right about the ‘they are all just Trustafarians’ question (they aren’t), though I think that some of the critics of the demonstrators are onto something with this line of attack.
Like Shuggy, I’d suggest that, in an affluent society, protest is increasingly becoming a means by which people dissociate themselves from the decisions of a democracy, rather than a means of changing policies. Interestingly, the slogan that brought the protesters against the Iraq War in 2003 together was ‘Not In My Name.’
Put crudely, I think that good governance depends on the ability to manage and marginalise ‘active citizens’ (unless they get elected!). So the problem is affluent citizens (time-rich) but not really trustafarians.
It strikes me as, at least in part, a waste of everyone’s time.
There is no question that we have a fundamental right to demonstrate against policies that we oppose. But do we have a fundametal right to be heeded by anyone with any influence?
This raises the wider question: Should democratic policy-making simply be a means by which a process is applied mechanistically in order to produce a product? Is it simply the model whereby….
- MPs are elected,
- they listen to evidence and speak to the voters between times in order to make sure that their policymaking is being done properly,
- make their decisions and frame legilation accordingly
- face the music at the end of their term of office
Surely there is more to democracy than that? Or is this the least-worst model open to us?If politicians should only be swayed by the quality of evidence, and never by the number of people that hold an opinion (and I’d argue that – for the most part, this is what they should do) is there a legitimate role for effective protest at all?
Here are some examples of how protest can add to the process:
1. The ‘this isn’t really a democracy’ gambit
The fairly rigid rules I’ve applied so far assume that elections are free and fair, that we all have equal access to elected politicians in order to submit evidence, and that those politicans aren’t coerced to allow insubstantial evidence to outweigh the good stuff against their better judgement in any way. If this isn’t the case, citizens could even argue that they have a right to bear arms in order to sort the situation out. It would have to be a well made argument though….
2. The ‘my politician is corrupt’ gambit
Similar to the ‘coercion’ element in point 1 (above) except that the politician is soliciting the coercion in question. Again, raising a mob to impeach the culprit is, in theory, justifiable. In theory….
3. The ‘we’re an oppressed minority’ gambit
The reason that the words ‘liberal’ and ‘democracy’ are bound together so strongly are because – as John Stuart Mill argued, no functioning democracy has the right to oppress minorities. We all have basic human rights, and a majoritarian political system still has boundaries. The right to protest – and, if necessary, civil disobedience – is surely a basic one under these circumstances?
4. The ‘we need to illustrate our evidence more effectively’ gambit
Imagine you had a very arcane point to make – one that is good in itself, but it’s very hard to explain or promote. Advocates of simplistic points enjoy an advantage that is not necessarily in the public interest.Wealthy pressure groups can pay PR people and ad agencies to solve this problem – street-theatre of one kind or another – is clearly a democratic response from under-resourced protesters. Thus the idea of detournment. I’d go further – civil disobedience to counter the work of well-heeled pressure groups can be justified as long as it’s proportionate. And, I’d argue, the purchase of democratic power could justify quite substantial civil disobedience in some circumstances.
However, this kind of expression doesn’t really rely upon weight of numbers – more upon a small number of people doing something creative and eye-catching.
5. The ‘because so many people will refuse to co-operate with this law, it isn’t practical’ gambit.
The Poll-Tax riots and the Countryside Alliance demonstrations were both cases in point. Both were highly contested peices of legislation that would criminalise large sections of the population for doing things that they thought were reasonable. Both of these arguments appear to be close to the ‘oppressed minority’ gambit, and I’m concious that it would be possible to drive a coach and horses through it if one wished to. The argument for referendums is that they are needed to ratify ‘constitutional change’ – and while I have reservations about the legitmacy of single-issue plebiscites, it would be hard to argue that a government can simply change the rules in a wholesale way on the back of a general election victory (unless the proposed changes were a centrepeice of the election campaign, perhaps?)
6. The ‘look – there are lots of us who are annoyed – maybe if people see us on TV they will act themselves or rethink?’ gambit
This appears to be the ‘Not in my name’ gambit. Of the six gambits, it seems to me to be the least convincing one, though it’s also the most popular. I can’t think of any other reasons why demonstration may be justified or could be effective but I’d be interested to hear counter-arguments.
For gambits one and two (imperfect democracy), the means of redress are potentially drastic, and I’d suggest that you’d need to have a coherent outline of how democracy could practically work more effectively than it does currently. I aways find it difficult to take this argument from people who are members of ‘Democratic Centralist’ political groupings on the far left, or for people who argue for a more direct form of democracy.
Gambit four (and possibly, Gambit six?) isn’t really a protest against the government at all. It’s a protest against rival elements within civil society. It’s partly about persuading politicians (as opposed to bullying them – which is good) or countering the claims of rival pressure groups (which is good as well).
But for me, the big question is this: If elected politicians should only be swayed by demonstrations in exceptional circumstances, does this make most demonstrations completely pointless? And if so, does this add to a popular sense of impotence in the face of organised power?
