flexibeast | Demonstrations

i just came across a thread in someone else's LJ in which people raised doubts about the effectiveness of mass public protest, and suggested the need for "new, creative" forms of protest. i feel my response was worth repeating here:

Having had many years of experience as an activist, i would suggest that public demonstrations can have two effects:

* First and foremost, it 'demonstrates' the number of people willing to put themselves in the public eye and say "i stand for this" or "i'm against that". i once heard - from someone familiar who has worked with politicians - that if a politician gets just one personally composed letter (rather than, say, thousands of form letters), they start to think, "Hmm, maybe there's concern about this". If they get four or five such letters, they start thinking "Woah, okay, people are starting to get worked up about this". Similarly, when politicians see thousands and thousands of people out on the streets - well, depending on context, thousands of people on the streets of New York clearly doesn't have the same effect as thousands of people on the streets of, say, Macon - it tells them that people don't just want change, but that they are, in large numbers, actually willing to get off their butts and say so very publicly. Politicians are less concerned if all people are going to do is sit in front of the tv and say "Shit, that sucks."

Further, mass demonstrations are more difficult for the mass media to ignore or misrepresent, due to the sheer numbers of people involved - people who can tell their family and friends what the protest was actually about, and what actually happened at it. One example of this happened here in Melbourne several years ago, when there was a mass protest - ~100,000 in a city of ~3 million - against the policies of the Jeff Kennett government. The Herald Sun, a Murdoch rag and very hence [sic, *blush*] a promoter of conservative populism, and normally a disser of protests, covered the protest with the headline "FAIR GO JEFF!" Whereas with smaller, stunt-like protests, they were/are easily able to paint the protesters as fringe loonies who are pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.

* Secondly, it can help people feel part of a group that shares the same values that they do. So instead of feeling like "Hey, i'm just one person, what can i do?", people can go, "Hey, there's quite a few of us feeling like this . . . . maybe, just maybe, we can change things together!" So people feel empowered, instead of feeling fatalistic and apathetic. And that, in turn, can mean that they feel encouraged to go out and talk to other people about the issue in question, and encourage those people to get fired up about the issue themselves.

This particular protest may have been small, but all social movements that have ended up achieving significant change have started small. Heck, a small protest in 1968 by French students, on the issue of cohabitation, eventually spiraled out into a mass movement that resulted in the French government considering leaving (or actually leaving) the country. And more recently, mass demonstrations in France against youth employment policies got those policies changed.

It's no co-incidence that mass demonstrations have been a noticeable part of most, if not all, movements that have achieved substantial social and/or political change.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Since this is about me, I'll respond ;-)

There are protests every Friday, by the same people. This was different only in that it was coordiated with other cities and, per usual, those of us who are not "edgy" enough to be part of the indymedia scene are not invited or informed.

There is nothing to prove here and there is no "media cover up" about the anti-war sentiment in Portland.

Most of the progressive people in Portland are just tired of Portland Indymedia making up shit so it looks like the city is on fire and it's not. It does not help the cause when you call for the Black Cross for backup and then proclaim you want a "peaceful" protest.

If you want to be anarchists, be anarchists, great, more power to ya. But don't run around saying "we're peaceful and then call up the anarchists to do your dirtywork.

http://portland.indymedia.org/

Btw, this one was bigger than the usual, and the police maced and arrested, which is always bad.

That said, I think demonstrations serve a great purpose, it's just overused in Portland.

*nod*

My intent was not really to talk about this particular protest - your comments on which i'll comment on below - but more to address what i believe to be a not-particularly-useful antagonism - both amongst activists and the community in general - towards mass protest. Particularly when such antagonism is based on such stupid notions as "It's old, let's do something new!" Hey, the wheel is old, but it works.

That said:

There are protests every Friday, by the same people.

Yep, i know the sort of protests you mean. :-)

This was different only in that it was coordiated with other cities and, per usual, those of us who are not "edgy" enough to be part of the indymedia scene are not invited or informed.

:-/ This 'glamour activism' shit really gets to me. Sorry that you've got to deal with such idiocy.

There is nothing to prove here and there is no "media cover up" about the anti-war sentiment in Portland.

Heh, no, from what i know of Portland - and admittedly, that's not a huge amount - i got the impression that anti-war sentiment would be de rigeur. :-) But please correct me if i'm wrong.

Most of the progressive people in Portland are just tired of Portland Indymedia making up shit so it looks like the city is on fire and it's not.

And fair enough, too. This sort of impatient "i want an exciting revolution now! *footstamp*" stuff is why Lenin called ultraleftism "an infantile disorder". :-)

It does not help the cause when you call for the Black Cross for backup and then proclaim you want a "peaceful" protest. If you want to be anarchists, be anarchists, great, more power to ya. But don't run around saying "we're peaceful and then call up the anarchists to do your dirtywork.

Sorry, could explain what "Black Cross" is?

Btw, this one was bigger than the usual, and the police maced and arrested, which is always bad.

*sad nod*

That said, I think demonstrations serve a great purpose, it's just overused in Portland.

*nod* Certainly if the protests are confined to some sort of self-proclaimed 'elite', which will surely prevent them from growing, repeated protests of the type you describe would end up being more discouraging than encouraging, for me . . . .

It's no co-incidence that mass demonstrations have been a noticeable part of most, if not all, movements that have achieved substantial social and/or political change.

While I agree with that statement, I do think it's worth pointing out that A does not equal B - most protests do not end with any kind of real change occurring.

For example - there was a huge, nation-wide protest about the war on iraq....but we still went. If something as huge as that did not change anything, it is no surprise that people are unlikely to have any faith in anything short of a nationwide movement (and even then).

No indeed, protests only work if they're part of an ongoing campaign. It's like a game of 'chicken' - it's a matter of who backs down first. If people only mobilise once for an issue, and no further mobilisations are organised - or further mobilisations are poorly attended - it tells the people you're protesting against that you don't have the will to carry on until change happens.

So in that sense, the Iraq war demonstration could indeed be seen as more destructive than constructive, because, as you say, it didn't achieve immediate change, and the momentum wasn't sustained, so it just made people feel disheartened.

But that leads me on to a whole 'nother rant about opportunist/careerist 'leaders' of such protests, so i'll stop there for the moment. :-)

While mass-protests can do all the things you mentioned, you need to have a huge groundswell of support for this to work.

A mere dozen of the usual suspects can do more harm than good... understating the community's feelings and making you look like your cause is unsupported.

Some activists have been known to organise a protest and then complain about apathy when no-one but the usual suspects turn up. Activists need to respect time of the public...
* Recognise the busy schedules of the actual WORKING CLASS... 2 job families, kids, exhaustion do not facilitate attendance at rallies. Who do you really want to attend? Consider your market. Getting mums and dads out there and the church ladies etc, along with the usual suspects is what the politicians take more seriously. Easier ways to participate (such as encouraging letter writing to the appropriate people, and making it as easy to do as possible, is more likely to succeed in attracting participation... see Get Up as an example.
*Activists organising protests need to respect the time and free-will of people who actually turn up.
- Many people (myself included) have attended rallies where great momentum and participant enthusiasm has been lost by "waiting for people to show up" and thus starting late (if they are not there, start without them and teach people their time is worth something, and that those that show up late elected to miss the start).
- Make sure that speakers speak well and can motivate the crowd. Cut out poor speakers or do not put them at the end. Make sure that people are on an up when it is time to kick off. As undemocratic as it is, reconsider having an open mike - this may be better to have at the end instead of the beginning, if it should be included at all.
- Ensure a decent sound system is acquired so that participants can hear what is being said.
- Do not be over ambitious with a march that goes on for miles... organsiers need to take in the needs of people with time constraints or disabilities. No more than 1 km if you want to actually have people to finish
- Make sure that the event is well planned. People need to know what they are getting in for at the start, and what risks are involved. It is NOT APPROPRIATE for one particular faction to suggest in the middle of the rally or march that a building should be stormed or occupied etc. If confrontation is to be part of the strategy, a select group of volunteers should be chosen who are skilled in safe direct action. People should be given a choice as to whether they break the law.
- Recognise that while there might be thousands of people (or tens of people) at a protest, they may have different reasons for being there. DOn't assume all participants have your preferred brand of political thought. Diversity is a good thing. Taking advantage of a large crowd to make your point seem more popular is abusive and unethical.

In short, public protests can be useful, however they must be well organised according to respect and free-choice principles. Activists need to avoid blaming others if their protest isn't well attended. Groundswell occurs by harnessing existing support and informing people of what's going on. It cannot happen by dragging people kicking and screaming to a particualr ideological view point.

(IMHO)

*nod* Excellent points. :-)

Why thank you :)

Secondly, it can help people feel part of a group that shares the same values that they do.

*nod* A lot of the reason I go to major protest marches when I can is because it's good for me. It's energizing, and helps me go back home and work harder on the day-to-day slog for a while.

Demonstrations

Well...

Re: Well...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject