Today is the 40th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday, an event in which the British Army opened fire on unarmed civil rights protesters in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, killing fourteen. Although the recent debate in the UK focuses on culpability of the army and the authorities, this event also gives us an opportunity for a more general reflection on the usefulness of the civil disobedience tactic today.
A good point to start is to quote what Orwell had to say on the subject in 1949:
"[Gandhi] believed in "arousing the world," which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference. "
It thus appears that Orwell was skeptical about the civil disobedience tactic because it would work only in a democratic state where, one may add, it is one of many ways of voicing political dissent. However, it is pretty much ineffective in a totalitarian regime.
I like Orwell as a writer, his writing is very engaging and clear, qualities that not that many European writers possess. I wonder, however, to what extent, if any, Orwell’s view on the effectiveness, or rather lack thereof, of civil disobedience had been influenced by the memory of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which the British war criminal in the rank of Brigadier General Reginald E.H. Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on unarmed civilians in the Indian city of Amritsar in 1919, which incidentally also took place on a Sunday (has Her Majesty secretly proclaimed Sunday the “Shoot a Protester Day” ?), killing as many as 1,000.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre offers a compelling case against civil disobedience – it reinforces Orwell’s point that such a tactic amounts to a mass suicide, if the protesters face an enemy who is determined to shoot to kill. It goes even further than that, it illustrates that bourgeois democracies are not much better than totalitarian regimes in its willingness to shoot civil rights protesters, a point further reinforced by similar events in other democracies, such as the Adalen massacre in 1931, the Kent State massacre in 1970, in addition to the Amritsar deja vu in Derry in 1972.
What these events demonstrate is that opening fire on unarmed civil rights protesters is actually less damaging to the political system in a democracy than in an authoritarian regime. If such an event occurs in a totalitarian state, two things are likely to follow. First, the regime tries to cover it up as if it did not occur and censor the news of the shooting. Second, the foreign press gives this event as much publicity as possible, especially if the authoritarian regime in question is labeled “communist.” So the more the regime tries to censor the reports of the shooting, the more credible and more in demand the foreign reports appear. So at the end, while the protest itself had minimal, if any at all, impact on the regime, the massacre of the protesters undermined the credibility of the regime and contributed to its subsequent demise (c.f. in Poland after 1970 rebellion in Gdansk, which I witnessed, and after the martial law in 1981.)
However, no such thing happens in a bourgeois democracy. To be sure, bourgeois democracies do not shoot protesters very often, but when they do – two things occur. First, the event is covered by all media outlets from every imaginable angle, which immediately removes any suspicion of a cover-up. Second, a special government commission is appointed to investigate the event, and after many years of deliberation it issues a report that invariably exonerates the people who did or ordered the shooting, but opens the door for civil litigation against the government, i.e. the taxpayers. In other words, bourgeois democracies are very efficient in protecting their functionaries while socializing the cost of the massacre, just as they are very efficient in protecting the interests of well-connected businessmen, while socializing the cost of their business practices.
Thus, Orwell’s critique of the effectiveness of civil disobedience stands, especially in bourgeois democracies. First, a civil disobedience protest poses very little risk to the powers that be, even if it is violently suppressed. Such suppression fails to delegitimate a bourgeois democracy that, unlike authoritarian regimes, mastered the art and science of manufacturing of consent and legitimation. Instead of censoring the news of violent suppression of protest, bourgeois democracies drown them in noise and spin manufactured in endless quantities by the media and government bureaucracy, which introduces enough moral ambiguity to effectively neutralize the delegitimizing potential of the attack on protestors.
Second, far from undermining this consent and legitimation manufacturing, acts of civil disobedience actually reinforce a bourgeois democracy. The fundamental assumption of any civil disobedience protest is the existence of the so-called “civil society,” or a public sphere where citizens can pursue their interests and voice their concerns. The very existence of a protest action is a manifestation of the existence of this civil sphere, which in turn legitimates the political system that “guarantees” its existence. This connection between protest and legitimation of the political system can be illustrated by a visiting NGO activist from Kenya whom I met and who was greatly impressed by the fact that people could freely protest against the current administration in the National Mall in Washington DC. In his native Kenya, any anti-government demonstration would likely be dispersed by the police.
In sum, civil disobedience actions are more likely to legitimate the status quo in a bourgeois democracy than undermine it, even in an unlikely event of state violence against the protestors. Thus, such actions are not only ineffective as Orwell claimed, but they are counter-effective. It is so, because bourgeois democracy has mastered the art of privatizing the profits and socializing the cost, both in business and in politics. They protect the businessmen and functionaries while dissipating their responsibilities, and socializing the cost of their actions.
To be effective, a protest action must reverse this privatization of profits and socialization of costs tendency of bourgeois democracy. Street demonstrations cannot do it because they cannot inflict enough damage to corporate and government functionaries who hide behind the curtain of “the system” – even if they blink and abuse their power. They only expose protestors to personal risk. An effective protest action must do the opposite: threaten or inflict damage to corporate and government functionaries while minimizing the personal risk of the protestors.
A good example of such an action was a recent protest campaign against proposed anti-piracy legislation (SOPA and PIPA.) This campaign demonstrated that a great number of libertarian minded “netizens” – who typically are “swing” voters – are willing to take politicians responsible on an issue that is dear to them. This was a serious threat, especially in an election year, and the political support behind this legislation folded like a house of card. Although pundits interpreted it as “democracy at work” – this was in fact a successful protest action at work. What made it successful is a credible threat it posed to the political functionaries (aka “elected representatives.”)
So instead of stomping their feet in the streets and risking being tear gassed and arrested, if not shot at, which threatens no one but the protesters themselves, a successive protest action must devise a strategy that poses a credible political risk to specific corporate and government functionaries responsible for the state of affairs targeted by the protest. Of course, specific strategies of protest will vary depending on the circumstances, who is involved, and what credible threat can be posed, but protest organizers should plan their strategy based on the political cost/benefit considerations, instead of ritualistically engaging in tradition-honored forms of protest that simply ceased to be effective, if they ever have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment