Protests are funny things and it's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize how they unfold. It gets easier as one gets older, but I must admit that I am disillusioned with mass protest as any form of political dialogue.
In most cases, I think this is because protest organizers fail to integrate protests into a larger political strategy. It's easy for politicians to discount protests that involve thousands, even tens of thousands of people, when voter turnout levels are still low. Any protests aimed at political change need to be tied clearly to
In 1993 I helped organize one of the largest mass protests in Alberta history. Almost 8,000 high school students cut class to demonstrate against proposed budget cuts. Seeing thousands of students out on the streets was a very happy, albeit extremely short-lived, moment. Did things quickly spiral out of the control of the "central organizing committee"? Yes. Did the media hand-pick "student leaders" to interview? Yes. Did our message get articulated clearly in the media? Not at all. Were we represented in the press by a football player? Yes. Am I bitter? Not nearly as much now as I was then.
Protests are inherently Romantic things, with dreams of strolling down the streets, arm in arm, singing Pete Seeger songs, etc. But part of the mistake we made, and it's an easy one to make, is believing that everyone in the crowd is there for the same reason, and that those reasons align with yours. Crowds take on a life of their own and it's pretty arrogant to think that you can control what's going to happen, which paradoxically, is part of the problem. I think you should only protest when you have a reasonable chance of having your message or intent being communicated clearly. But if the sole purpose of the protest is just to show everyone else how angry you are, isn't that just vanity on the part of the protesters?
Again, a protest ought to be a part of a larger strategy, and part of the work of protesting is educating everyone on what the next step is, before it actually happens. Everyone needs to know that regardless of the actual outcome, tomorrow everyone is going to do X, whether it's join a political party, make YouTube statements, or plant a bunch of daisies. I wonder if part of the problem with these G8/G20 protests is that too many of the participants have already given up on the electoral process. If that's the case, then there's really no point in protesting anymore, is there? Isn't it time to do something else?
We know, since the Chicago 1968 riots and countless released FBI files, that security forces routinely plant double agents that act as instigators. Certainly, in the history of popular revolts there's a time and a place for violence, but it all needs to be part of the strategy. If the strategy is just to raise awareness, then protesting is a good tactic and violence doesn't have any role to play, since it distracts from the overall message. If the purpose is actually to prevent something from happening, like the G20, then quite frankly, a protest is the wrong tactic to use. If you're angry and you feel the electoral system has failed you, and tens of thousands of people in the street agree with you, then it's time for something other than a simple protest to get your message across.
Frankly, I'm tired of protesting and protests. I tired of the pointless violence that plays out like a cheap novel.
