Is this a fair description of what happened and can it really be said that the escalation of the protest was against the interests of the majority of those protesting? In fact, it's very clear that the protest received considerably more coverage than it would have done if it had all passed off peacefully. And even though almost all of the coverage was negative, viewers can have been left in doubt of the passions that have been aroused by the trebling of tuition fees.
Our right to protest is regarded by many to be proof of the healthiness of our democracy but can this really be true when marches have been neutered by an acceptance by those protesting that they must liaise with the police and follow a series of carefully constructed guidelines to stay on the right side of the law?
Protesting is, by its nature, an inherently anti-establishment act so it's counter-productive to bring it within the mainstream of political expression.
By co-operating with the police and ensuring that all the appropriate permissions are sought, it's now possible for thousands of people to march through one of our major cities without so much as a provocative shout emanating from the crowd, never mind a brick.
The broadcast media will offer the event a little bit of coverage on their news bulletins, the Government can satisfy itself that it is a properly democratic institution because it has permitted this heavily sedated dissent and then... well, nothing. The lack of passion on display will persuade no one of the righteousness of the cause no matter how many are marching because the impact is destroyed by adherence to all the regulations.
Did the government plan this? Almost certainly not but they benefit from it nonetheless. Not only do these neutered protests enable the authorities to claim that they're tolerant of dissent but they can also contrast the behaviour of those who abide by the rules with those who don't. This gives them licence to demonise the latter and question their motives.
They are aided and abetted in this by the media who, in the case of the students who broke into Tory HQ, have dusted off pejoratives such as 'Trots' to emphasise the idea that dark figures infiltrated the protest as a cloak for their sinister political agenda.
This is a far-fetched accusation. It seems much more likely that some of the students felt so frustrated by the neutered nature of the legitimate protest that they felt the need to break free of its shackles. What happened next was, in all likelihood, pretty spontaneous. And a glimpse at the footage appears to confirm this. The students attacking the building on Millbank look quite surprised that they meet such feeble resistance and this, more than anything, appeared to encourage them to push their luck.
But surely the biggest irony is the fact that it worked. A story about a student protest that would have garnered very little media interest became a major story. Even though the coverage was very negative, the audience cannot have failed to note the anger of those taking part even if they were tutting their disapproval as they watched.
So the students who disavowed the behaviour of those who smashed windows should think again. Without the vandalism, this march would barely have registered on the national consciousness.
A line needs to be drawn between those who damaged property and the actions of one individual who hurled a fire extinguisher from a roof with wonton disregard for the welfare of those on the ground below. Any action which risks injury to others cannot be seen in the same light as actions which risk injury to those taking part or damage to property. If the fire extinguisher incident happened in the way it's been described then it ought to be roundly condemned. Having said that, a charge of 'attempted murder' is several leagues over the top... something akin to 'reckless endangerment' appears far more appropriate.
The key lesson that can be drawn from all of this is that protests need to step outside the boundaries of what's permitted in order to be effective. They don't have to be violent and they don't have to involve attacks on property but they must create a point of conflict.
To draw attention to their cause, protesters have to be willing to take risks with their own liberty and their own safety. This was something that was completely understood by Gandhi and Martin Luther King who consistently put themselves in the firing line when leading peaceful protests.
How would Gandhi and King have responded to the sterility of modern protesting in the UK? Is it likely that they have been content to allow their challenge to the establishment to have been neutered by abiding to regulations designed to minimise the impact of their protest?
Of course not. Faced with the level of control exerted on political protests in Britain today, they'd have found imaginative ways of creating discomfort for the governing authorities... they absolutely understood that this is the very least that a protest must achieve.
Next time around it will be easier for the students. The police will be up for it and they're likely to over-react to the slightest provocation. And if this happens, the media tide will turn in favour of the protesters. All the students have to do is find a minor way of stepping outside what's permitted. A mass sit-in along the march route or something of that order would do the trick. Throw the ball into the authorities' court and see what they do next. It won't be pretty but sympathy for the students and their cause will rise inexorably.
No comments:
Post a Comment