‘The right to protest is a fundamental pillar to a functioning democracy, but we must question where the red line stands’
In recent times, the question of protesting has become a hotly contentious debate. Whether it be Extinction Rebellion or the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd; the rights of expressing dissatisfaction has become a major topic of discussion within political discourse.
Following the presentation of the Crime and Policing Bill by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel; the debate has flared up, with many outraged at the bills extensive curbing of protesting rights. It is therefore only right to explore where protesting stands in a healthy civilised liberal democracy.
It’s fair to say, no functioning democracy works without the ability and power of its citizens to demonstrate disdain for its government or their policies. The collective effort of those who fight for justice and the betterment of people is core to strong democratic rule. Throughout history, demonstrations have made considerable changes, through the power of mobilisation and solidarity in pursuit of noble causes.
It is however unavoidable, to recognise the disruption and disharmony caused by mass protests. The attitude of many has been to adopt an almost scorched earth policy, demonstrating and protesting with absolute anarchy, pointing to their desire to see the establishment crumble in their pursuit to pressure change.
During the Extinction Rebellion protest in 2019, many believed the disruption would cause such economic damage, the establishment would be forced to recognise the danger of climate change. What actually happened was that those most affected were not the rich corporate owners sitting in their high-end mansions, who were responsible for the pollution of our planet; it was the average working man and woman that suffered. So not only was it strategically incompetent, turning away large portions of the electorate who had the power to elect a government that would pressure change to climate action; it was also morally problematic. In many ways, this perfectly displays the irrationality of political discourse amongst the general public, who have placed extreme emotion beyond logical action.
Now I’m not necessarily saying that it’s wrong or erroneous to pressure governments or polities of authority, adamant to continue striving on a path of oppression and ignorance. Therefore I would never suggest placing fundamental restrictions on the public’s capability to protest. If the power to demonstrate against the establishment lies in the hands of the establishment, it defeats the purpose.
Nevertheless, when no red line can be made between civil demonstration and public disobedience, it becomes a momentous danger, to say the least. A society that lacks respect for authority ceases to exist.
The toppling of Edward Colston’s statue during the summer of last year is also a great example. I doubt many will disagree that desecrating the statue of a former slave trader is not within itself an issue of grave transgression. But the problem lies when there is an inability to draw the line, because who is not to say another statue or public property deserves to be defiled in the name of justice, perpetuating a constant cycle until civilisation burns in the ashes of ‘justice’. It is the reason, we institutionalise justice, giving it a level of universality. Now that does not mean those institutions can not fail to provide sufficient justice, but justice without a framework to protect it will only create immense injustice and chaos.
“The only way of protecting the right to demonstrate dissatisfaction whilst maintaining peace and stability is to uphold the social contract between government and people”
The rules of healthy protests can not be regulated through legislation. The reality is, if the public decided that tomorrow they wanted to overthrow the government, they could. At the same time, if the government decided tomorrow they were going to impose a despotic system that bleeds the country of the right to demonstrate, they could. The only way of protecting the right to demonstrate dissatisfaction whilst maintaining peace and stability is to uphold the social contract between government and people. If the public refuse to draw the line, crossing into the realm of looting and pillaging; then you can not expect the government to idly sit by and watch the corrosion of society. At the same time, if the government wish to use this argument to advance their desire not to be held to account by the people, then they can not expect to not find an angry public, adamant to defend their rights at any cost.
I would argue that much of this is down to the extreme polarisation of politics, especially in recent years. Consequently, it should make us all ponder, if the balance can not be maintained, could this be the gradual break down of society, and civilisation itself?
