Introduction
Take any dictionary, encyclopedia, or search the web for the word democracy. There are hundreds of definitions and explanations of the term. But the common thread that runs through all of them is a form of governance of the people and by the people. The government should be elected using some form of the public franchise and should not be one that is inherited (monarchy) or one taken by force. The core point is governance of the people and for the people.
Even if a nation is governed by a monarch or a dictator or even by minority rule, they are expected to work for the common good of their subjects. When the common man feels oppressed or threatened, or when he or she feels that his basic rights are being denied the natural reaction is to protest against this injustice. In some instances, the population may feel helpless to protest and remain a mute victim until a chance to do so happens. But in most instances, they do react either peacefully or violently. One form of protest that is being increasingly common is street protest (peaceful or otherwise). In a democracy (or elsewhere) public violence and destruction of property cannot be justified.
But peaceful street protests are seen to be perfectly justified and even seen as a right to express feelings and opinions. In 1999, a street protest was organized in Seattle to protest against the policies of the World Trade Organization. Four dramatic days of protests, violence, and clashes with the police happened. What was meant to be a peaceful protest ultimately resulted in a debate over the right to hold such forms of protests? This paper attempts to analyze and form an opinion on whether street protests, of the kind that took place in Seattle, can legitimately be understood as an aspect of democracy.
The story of the Seattle protests
The Seattle Convention Centre in the city was the setting of the final session of the World Trade Organization of the millennium. The WTO was seen as highly influenced by the large corporations of the world and perceived to be anti-democratic. āOut of the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the profoundly anti-democratic World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995ā. (Molly Morgan, Virginia Rasmussen & Mary Zepernick, GENDER, AND GLOBAL CORPORATIZATION, The PROGRAM ON CORPORATIONS, LAW & DEMOCRACY).
As in Seattle and elsewhere it became a common practice to show public protests against the organization wherever it held its meetings. This particular meeting was seen as a move to appease corporations which could result in laws that were detrimental to the environment, the workers, and the society in general, which if true can be honestly termed as anti-democratic. The Seattle protest was on an unprecedented scale and an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 protesters from all over the world participated. It also lasted for nearly four days from September 30th to December 4th, 1999. According to media reports, the genuine protesters held only peaceful demonstrations.
But among the group were some vandals, intent on making trouble and indulge in acts of violence and looting. This was perceived by city officials and law enforcement agencies as part of the action of the protest itself. Violence and denial of justice reminiscent of the 1960s began to take place on the part of the government. This action was also in part fuelled by the WTO itself which was intent on carrying out its meeting. āSeattle also saw free speech cracked down on in the name of free trade.ā (Anup Shah, WTO Protests in Seattle, 1999, Global Issues – Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All).
It was also an instance where police-grade OC spray (concentrated pepper) was used on civil rights protesters in the United States. The dramatic footage of innocent and peaceful protesters being sprayed in the face at close quarters can be seen in the compelling documentary titled āThis is What Democracy Looks Likeā. The documentary is a shocking collage of visuals compiled from footage taken by many photographers who recorded the events. The situation got to such an extent that the mayor ordered a āno protest zoneā in the city and brought in the National Guards to assist the police. A saddening fact of the whole issue was that the media largely reported the event as violent and justified the actions of the police and the National Guards.
This was an anti-democratic action on the part of the city officials and law enforcement agencies. This brings up the issue of justification of street protests itself. Was the violence (by vandals) which became to be seen as the acts of the protestors themselves preventable? If not, will the same thing repeat itself in another setting also? Is even a peaceful street protest anti-democratic? The question that now remains to be answered is āare street protests for the demand of civil rights justified in a democratic settingā. This will be done in the remaining sections of the paper.
History of street protests
History is replete with instances of many forms of street protests, some violent and some peaceful. One of the most famous of these was the Boston Tea Party where colonists in America dumped cases of tea into the sea as a protest against British taxes on the product. The root cause behind the above incident and most street protests was freedom. It is also for demanding equal rights as in the case of the protests led by Martin Luther King Jr. for the cause of the colored people in the USA. But the most celebrated of all peaceful protests are the ones led or called for by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi of India, commonly referred to as the Mahatma or Great Soul.
His form of non-violent street protests and strikes were followed by other famous leaders like King Jr. Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Street protests continue to be a popular form of protest the world over and will continue also. (Mahatma Gandhi, Page 2, Peter Townsend, Human Rights Day Balloon Debate: who is the greatest of the 20th century? Old Theatre, LSE, 8 December 2005).
Peaceful protest is a fundamental right
A review of literature from many (democratic) countries indicates the citizens of those countries have the right to peacefully protest against any grievances. These might be personal, political, racial, religious, or social. The following lines from the United States will make the matter clear. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I. Daniel Newby, “Permitting” Peaceful Protests, The Helmsman Society).
The key part in the above phrase is āthe right of the people peaceably to assemble and to show their protest to the concerned authority. The article adds that some states prefer to request with the police before resorting to such a protest. The US Government had also said that peaceful protests against Chinese policies during the Olympic Torch relay in the United States were within the law of the country. Greenpeace lawyers have also expressed this view defending a suit against their protest policies in the United States. Australian law also states that peaceful protest and assembly is a fundamental right. āYou do not have to tell police that you are organizing a rally, but CCL recommends that you do.ā (Do you want to organize a protest? Stand up for our rights, NSWCCL ā New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties).
In the UK too, the right to protest is protected by law. āThe Lords have confirmed that freedom to protest is something that should be treasured in this country and police don’t have the right to take it away.” (Right to protest for UK anti-war demonstrators, UK News, Ekklesia, 2006). Protesting peacefully is a fundamental right in India also, though the right to strike is not one. The US and Australia are well-established democracies and the UK is a functional democracy. India is the largest democratic nation in the world in terms of population size.
These four examples are strong arguments that peaceful protests including street protests are a democratic way of expressing grievances by anyone from the public. A democratic government statute saying that peaceful protest is democratic is enough to establish the above-mentioned statement. Some countries may require informing relevant agencies before organizing a street protest, but none will bar it. Some conditions like not causing inconvenience to the public, blocking off traffic, and non-destruction of private and public property may rightfully be incorporated. All such acts can be considered to be anti-democratic.
The counterargument is the example of the Seattle protests itself. There were acts of violence and looting that came about because of the demonstration. Even though it is apparent that the anti-democratic acts were not carried out by the protestors themselves, violence resulted and caused damage, injury, and tension to the citizens, city officials, and law enforcement agencies. The argument is that violence is bound to erupt in such circumstances.
It might come from the protestors themselves or from antisocial elements trying to take advantage of the situation. Moreover, the corporate world will want violence to happen during such demonstrations so that public sympathy towards protestors will become less. They may even purposefully encourage such acts in secret. Hence street protests are too risky to be taken lightly. It is better to term them as unlawful and undemocratic.
It is true to a certain extent what has been said in the counter above. But such instances are rare and do not happen every time. To ban protests in the light of the above factor alone is not enough. It must also be noted that in the famous protests (by Gandhi, Mandela, and King) there were very strong and powerful leaders who led (or ordered) the protests. The Seattle protest was not done in the same way and did not have strong leadership. But even in that case, none of the genuine protestors did any violence.
Conclusion
The only justification for banning street protests is when violence occurs in all such protests. That does not happen in the majority of the cases. Street protests are a strong and effective way to register protests. The clinching argument is that it should be done peacefully and without inconvenience to the public (including violence blocking traffic etc). The violence in Seattle was a stray case and is not representative of all street protests. Hence peaceful street protests are legal and a fundamental right in any democratic country.