Protest is almost always wrong?

[aelf]

Two pretty popularly-held beliefs are the notions that the democratic process is the proper way of effecting change non plus ultra, at least in a functioning democracy, and that violence should be the last resort. A lot of people can accept these two notions without much of a problem, but what they believe are the limits of these may vary, as shown in recent threads.

I'm interested in the implications of a strict adherence to these notions (e.g. that violence is not a solution unless it's already being committed by your opponents).

Other than voting, among legitimate ways of participating in the democratic process, I'd also include benign methods like petitioning elected representatives and such. But I'd contend that peaceful protest is not included if we go with a strict interpretation of the two notions - and this is where I think it gets interesting.

Firstly, one may view protests as an attempt at effecting change outside of the democratic process, since in a functioning democracy they would typically be in opposition to elected representatives (i.e. the charge that they're not respecting democratic choices). Secondly, protests are prone to violence, even if the original intentions were peaceful. If you strongly believe that violence is only permissible when all other options have been exhausted, then it would be irresponsible to carry out an activity that has a high chance of resulting in violence until all other options have been exhausted.

Do you agree? Or what do you think the problem is with this line of reasoning?

 

[Samson]

I think it is clear that non-violent protest can change the world in ways that writing to your representatives cannot. Examples abound, from India to the Arab Spring. However, in both these examples the risk is also clear, with the violence that surrounded partition to the war in Syria. So is it worth the risk?

Each situation has to be judged on its own merits. You cannot know a priori if your situation is going to be a Tunisia (peaceful (?) transition), a Syria (hundreds of thousands dead) or an Egypt (peaceful (?) transition, ending up in a military dictatorship not so different from where you started). Also the people who you have to convince are angry young men (and all the other protestors, but if you can convince the angry young men you are probably doing pretty well).

 

[Kyriakos]

Riots signify deepening issues with the society. While some parts of the riots can be agents of provocation etc, usually all riots have popular resentment roots, thus they aren't to be dismissed as mere freak cases or some ploy.
I do fear that the US laughed itself to crisis, which is why W---Obama---Trump---? is the situation at hand. Too many wars, too much double-standard in the middle east, too little logic in discussion, way too unbelievably much kneejerkish hacks in the media.

Not just a US effect, but multiplied there due to other reasons as well.
We are witnessing the death of an era, anyway. Eu looks set to not exist, and the US may change significantly as well, maybe split.

 

[W|M]

Riots are the language of the unheard

 

[Kyriakos]

Riots are the language of the unheard

And made of words like pain and hate

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Just a couple of days ago I was being told about how protests are wrong. They said that protests are done by people who feel they are better than everyone else who are angry at problems that don't actually exist. They even jokingly said they should go to a protest with a sign saying "Everything is fine." I then mentioned the suffragettes and they used that as an example as to why they are right.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Firstly, one may view protests as an attempt at effecting change outside of the democratic process, since in a functioning democracy they would typically be in opposition to elected representatives (i.e. the charge that they're not respecting democratic choices).

When all the known candidates to represent you support the same line being controlled by
parties themselves controlled by the same lobbyists, the democratic process is stymied.

In such circumstances, it is very appropriate to adopt "protest" positions e.g. occupy wall street.

Secondly, protests are prone to violence, even if the original intentions were peaceful.

In general protests are not prone to violence. Most of the violence is due to (a) agent provaceuters employed by the authorities, (b) violent opportunists
(c) criminal opportunists or (d) by the authorities suppressing the protest. For instance Martin Luther and the original protestants were not violent.

If you strongly believe that violence is only permissible when all other options have been exhausted, then it would be irresponsible
to carry out an activity that has a high chance of resulting in violence until all other options have been exhausted.

Well, although Jesus did assault the moneylenders in the Temple in general obstructionist protesting should not be the first choice.

However peaceable protesters should not be inhibited by the fact that others may opt for violence.
If they are so inhibited, then they are allowing the suppression of protest by the threat of violence.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think much of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is about public protest against the government. I assume by "protest" you're referring to public demonstrations and not criticism or journalism in the press. Still, I think in-person protests by groups of people would fall under the "redress of grievances." Personally, I'm in favor of public demonstrations, despite the ones that go downhill.

 

[warpus]

Protests can be an important part of the democratic process. Look at what happened in Romania very recently for instance, it wouldn't have been possible via other non-violent methods.

 

[Perfection]

Peaceful protest is not outside the democratic process, it is an integral part of it. A well informed and civicly engaged electorate comes only from a culture where vigorous debate among ordinary citizens on important issues is encouraged. Peaceful protest is a vital means of getting people to perform their civic duty of thinking about important topics.

 

[Slaughter]

You want to protest? Be intelligent, organized and orderly about it. Create minimal disruptions to public life as possible. Let the police do their jobs (ensuring **** doesn't get out of control). Don't be a thugger or idiot.
If you want a blueprint, pick the 2015-2016 patriotic protests in Brazil. Hint: The ones with green flags, not the ones with red flags.

This is the one in my city, in 13/03/2016. I went there. It was fantastic. No confusion, no trouble, just intelligent, cool people protesting for our country's sake.
We took down a president, people. Zero violence needed.

In our protests, there was a rule that if someone started ****, everyone sit down and let police handle it quick. Nobody even tried to send agent provocateurs.

People who go "protest" breaking **** and throwing molotovs should't ask why is it that the police arrives and starts cracking skulls. Gee, I wonder why?!

 

[W|M]

The results of those protests involve freezing increases of spending on education and healthcare for 20 years. Obviously when there's reactionaries on the street, cops will defend them, because cops are reactionary to the core. Also I wouldn't pay attention to anything positive said about Brazilian cops, in large part because they kill on average about 9 people per day.

 

[Zkribbler]

When I was in high school, protests brought about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, ending legalized Jim Crow discrimination in the U.S. When I was in college, I took part in protests against the Vietnam War, which brought about the end to that bloody and pointless chapter in history.

These were not wrong.

 

[The_J]

Firstly, one may view protests as an attempt at effecting change outside of the democratic process, since in a functioning democracy they would typically be in opposition to elected representatives (i.e. the charge that they're not respecting democratic choices).

I completely agree with your line of reasoning.
The prerequisites are wrong though.
Since we're all humans, and humans make errors, every system build by humans will contain errors (there might be exceptions).
If you consider all the big protests (recently or long time ago), there is probably a good chance that people did not think that the democratic process was functioning fine, or it actually was not functioning fine. And that was why they decided to protest.
I mean...why would you protest if you think everything is fine?
(you might disagree with their reasoning though, but that's not the point)

 

[Lexicus]

Protest is the real substance of democracy. The elections, the courts, etc. are just its trappings, its symbols.

 

[aelf]

I'm disappointed that none of the adamant "no to violence" posters have appeared.

Personally, I think protests are good, even if they may result in violence. But if you're strongly opposed to violence, wouldn't it be short-sighted to support something that has a tendency to result in violence? If you believe that anything tainted with violence can't be good (except in dire circumstances that mostly don't happen in the developed world), then it would make no sense for you to think that protests are generally advisable.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm disappointed that none of the adamant "no to violence" posters have appeared.

Personally, I think protests are good, even if they may result in violence. But if you're strongly opposed to violence, wouldn't it be short-sighted to support something that has a tendency to result in violence? If you believe that anything tainted with violence can't be good (except in dire circumstances that mostly don't happen in the developed world), then it would make no sense for you to think that protests are generally advisable.

Let alone that anyone who actually thinks this would have to be some sort of pacifistic anarchist who rejected the legitimacy of states. No, the problem with the "no to violence" people is that their appeals to morality are almost always directed pretty selectively.

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm disappointed that none of the adamant "no to violence" posters have appeared.

Personally, I think protests are good, even if they may result in violence. But if you're strongly opposed to violence, wouldn't it be short-sighted to support something that has a tendency to result in violence? If you believe that anything tainted with violence can't be good, then it would make no sense for you to think that protests are advisable except in dire circumstances that mostly don't happen in the developed world.

the method of protest is not important its the outcomes that count
the deliberate breaking of laws is a common practice at protests causing the police to then arrest protesters which is the aim of the protest....
having chosen beforehand how many will be arrested at that protest, which is 'generally' respected by the police
nightly news of 50 police carting away 60 year old grandmothers fighting to save old growth forest is priceless and the courts recognise this by recording no conviction and imposing a 6 month good behaviour bond
they have still chained themselves together and prevented loggers earning their legal pay and blocking traffic thus breaking the law
I myself have been arrested 4 times since 2000 and the out comes have been better than the time 2 years ago the union faced a horse cop charge tho less than better than the running riots against conscription and the Vietnam war from the early 1970's
if say Nazis rioted and burnt cars in this country the backlash from 'moderate supporters' of their political parties would be swift which is why we have seen few outright right-wing riots an exception being the Cornella beach riots that on the whole has done their cause no good
it is more important to show the powers that be arresting people than it is to burn cars or break windows and they will arrest you for J-walking

 

[Oerdin]

Riots are the language of the unheard

Riots are the language of the unheard

Riots, and their close brother looting, are the language of thieves and criminals who should be shot on sight.

I have zero tolerance for thuggery, vandalism, or people trying to use disorder to enrich themselves. I am very happy that, around here anyway, the Constitution gives everyone a right to protect their life and property with a gun if need be.

 

[Lexicus]

Riots, and their close brother looting, are the language of thieves and criminals who should be shot on sight.

Sounds fascist but ok