noodling

[ajva]

Various reports I've read of the demo yesterday got me thinking about democracy, and how it relates to direct action.


Demos in this country have changed a lot in the past few years. For one thing, they're bigger than they were in the mid-nineties. I think this has happened for several reasons. Firstly, demonstrating has become a more acceptable way of expressing one's opinion and as such it has moved into the mainstream. When my mates and me closed down a Shell garage in Cambridge in 1995, we took abuse from one particularly vitriolic petrol-needing driver who accused us all of being "a bunch of fucking crusties". The irony was we were all ivory-tower university students. I wonder if he ever figured that out.

The other thing is, the media is a *lot* more friendly to demos than they used to be. This is possibly because of the virtuous circle of more numbers=more mainstream=bigger issue=better coverage. But things have *really* changed. The only demo I ever went on that turned bad was the March for Social Justice in March(?)1997, when I was perturbed not only by the heavy-handedness of the police, but of the reporting afterwards, which portrayed the protesters as violent animals while failing to mention the systematic charging with horses and cracking open of heads on the part of the riot police. I remember helping one bloke whose head was streaming blood. He was a really gentle guy and stunned by what had happened to him. That kind of thing politicizes people, and it's noticeable that the police are rarely as heavy-handed these days - although possibly that is because the crowds just tend to be too damn big.

These days, we are sophisticated consumers. You can get all the violence you want just by choosing your protest correctly. Your best bet is MayDay. Or if you prefer peaceful protest, stick with the larger protests that attract a wider demographic. We really do have a great choice these days. I was delighted in February when my Dad went on the Stop the War march in Glasgow, because he'd never marched before and I knew he would get a charge out of the esprit de corps, the sense of fellowship that is unique to these events. But you know - when your Dad starts marching, you know it's gone mainstream.

Incidentally, I have demonstrated for a wide variety of causes in my time, from Student Loans to the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa to flying to Paris last year for the anti-Le Pen march. But the one thing I have never demonstrated about - and I expect I never will - is war. I simply cannot bring myself to protest against war (any war to date), or indeed any other cause that I do not fully understand. This is the crux of the matter: I always feel that war is such a complicated political issue, that I cannot possibly have all the relevant facts to hand, and therefore cannot make an informed choice. I have never sent my feet to march for a cause that I was not 100% behind. That is just my own personal preference; I have great respect for those who do protest for peace.

But I draw the line at calling politicians 'undemocratic' if they do not bow to the demands of demonstrators, and that is what I want to write about today. I keep seeing this over and over again, and it is starting to trouble me, because it seems to be seeping though into mainstream comment. When I was more active, I never expected politicians to do as we said; all I ever expected was to be a pressure group, and I think that in a democratic country, that is all anyone really has any right to expect. I suppose we have got to a stage now where demonstrating is so popular that it seems as if everyone is doing it, particularly within certain liberal circles like ours, where the anti-war sentiment is indeed the majority opinion and people who are not wholeheartedly so just keep quiet so as not to upset the applecart. But my point here is not to reopen the debate about the war (if you will please indulge me), but to think about how all this relates to democracy.

I see, for example, a spokesman for the STW coalition quoted in today's Metro thus:

"This phenomenal response shows the depth of feeling of the British public towards this visit".

Now, I don't like George W. Bush - his administration is indeed soaked in oil, and he is a right-wing bigot who has just shoved a retrograde abortion bill through Congress, but I don't really give a monkeys about him being here. He's the president of the United States, and it makes no difference to me how much pomp and circumstance attends his visit. I really don't care. I imagine there are thousands of others like me. Indeed, even if the top estimate is correct, there were only 200,000 people on the streets yesterday. My database at work shows a population of 59,540,000 for the UK - so only 0.34% of British people were on the march, top whack. It irks me that the organisers assume that this can be extrapolated to show wider unquestioning support for the demo. Do we really expect that politicians should immediately do policy U-turns just because 0.34% of the population is shouting loudly? That would not be democracy; that would be rule by a tiny minority, and yet protesters continue to castigate politicians for being 'undemocratic', which brings me to my next point.

In the same article, George Galloway is quoted as saying:
"We are speaking for the majority of the people in the world who want Bush out and who want Blair out".

What? How pompous! How can Mr. Galloway be expected to know what everyone in the world thinks? He doesn't even know what I think. And frankly, although I despise George W. Bush for his right-wing bigotry, I am not American, and therefore have no right whatsoever to say whether or how long he should remain in office. I know that US foreign policy affects us all, but even so, it would be undemocratic of me to expect to have a say in who the president of the US was. Of course, this is one reason why people demonstrate against him: we have no control over the selection process, so all anyone can do is take to the streets. Fair enough. But the dodgy pseudosyllogistic move from 'dodgy vote-counting in Florida' to 'not a fairly elected president' to 'not a democratically elected president' to 'the US is an undemocratic country' to 'the US is a capitalist dictatorship, and Dubya is a despot' seems very easily made by quite a few people, and that worries me, because I think the underlying feelings are starting to influence mainstream liberal opinion, and I think that it is unhelpful.

The 'undemocratic' charge also makes foreign policy complicated. Given the chaos in Iraq at the moment, quite clearly there needs to be some sort of working structure set up there before the US/UK/other western forces pull out, to try to stave off a nasty civil war. It may be impossible, of course, but it would be deeply unethical not to try. But of course, there are anti-US demonstrations going on there, which means that many people who are anti-war in this country can point to Iraqis demonstrating against the US as if it is majority Iraqi opinion. But the truth is - how can we possibly know? I have seen plenty of alternative reports from journalists interviewing Iraqis who want the foreign soldiers to stay as long as possible. I ask again - how can we possibly know what majority opinion is in Iraq? Is it even relevant at this stage? This brings me back to one of my earlier points, which is that my conscience does not permit me to march for things I do not support 100%.

I suppose what I am trying to say with this rantette is that I wish demonstrators would stop talking about how politicians are undemocratic in not doing what the protesters want. Sometimes I think that some of the demonstrators are pretty undemocratic-minded themselves, given the assumptions they make. Demonstrating, for me, is about raising the profile of what I believe in - a political pressure. I believe it has a very important role in democracy because the main flaw in democracy is the difficulty of protecting minority rights. But majority rule is the foundation of democracy and as a political ideology, it may be shite, but it's the best there is.

Comments

[louis_mallow]

Let me get this away first; the pedant in me says to those expecting a "democratic" response: I think that it's a mistake to expect a democratic response in any case, because we don't live in a democracy, or even a representative democracy. We live in a monarchy and that's a different kettle of fish.

Now to make more useful comment. First, your main point.

For me, I think what I felt was "undemocratic" was the total lack of any response to the huge anti-war march. I didn't expect a U-turn. However just a few weeks before our march, the Countryside Alliance had gathered a march of 40,000 or 400,000 or something and the next day Blair spoke and said, "We get the message, we'll consider the issues." When 2M of us marched we were simply ignored, not even mentioned. My local New Labour candidate lost my vote for the next election for that - it angered me so much that I'll actually vote punitively.

I guess I'm saying that I doubt anyone really expects U-turns, that's just their most extreme presented view. What they probably mean, like me, is, "If I'm upset enough to be moved to get off my arse and go on my first ever march along with 1.5M others, I expect to be +heard+ at least. How dare you completely +ignore+ me?"

Moving on to the policing, I spent most of yesterday's march behind the police barriers in parliament square, waiting for Howard to come along. The amount the police had to put up with, even on a good-natured wide-demographic march like yesterday's, was amazing. My guess is that police are simply trained better these days, because in their situation I would certainly have punched at least five protesters in the hour I stood there before I joined the march. SO I guess what I'm saying is I think the policing's probably better than it's ever been and that's the main reason they don't go cracking people's heads any more.

I understand what you mean about having a clear understanding of issues. The reason I've always slammed most protestors (remember the Tatchell row?) is that they seem to have an ultra-simplistic view of the world but are willing to make trouble for us all on the back of their incomplete understanding. It's also the reason I'd never marched before. However for me, the politics of this situation are really quite straightforward.

Iraq's not that difficult, for me. Now we're there, we're stuck there, guerrilla(sp?) war and all. However the government was warned by every man and his dog that this would be the case, so now all of the blood spilled is on their hands.

The government's response to this is straight, undiluted Machiavelli: The end justifies the means. I thought we'd grown beyond The Prince as a basis for politics and find that... disappointing.

Was deposing Saddam Hussein a Good Thing? Yes, of course. But I remember Bush and Blair offering to let him stay if he fulfilled certain conditions, so they clearly weren't +that+ bothered.

So we get the question (and it's not leading - I honestly believe you can answer it either way, depending on your views), "Can a desirable end which is unforseen, or is a by-product, justify an evil/morally flawed/unethical process which failed it's main aim?

(I realise my last two paras. don't actually answer any points you raised. I'm just kicking ideas about.)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this.

Can I just ask - what response to the huge peace march *would* have been enough for you not to feel the need to march yesterday? "We get the message; we'll consider the issues"? Because I don't think that would have satisfied most people. It seemed to me (I'm happy to be corrected, of course) that most people who marched in February were marching because they opposed the war and wanted to try to prevent British involvement. Only that would have been enough, I think, to prevent further protest. And even then, I think the anti-US involvement ones would have continued.

I must say I am slightly surprised to hear you say that you feel the earlier protesters' voice was not heard. I would disagree with this; I think it was heard very loudly indeed and it even influenced editorial policy in much of the national press, notably the Guardian of course. This is not a voice that was not heard, in my book; this was, in fact, a much bigger and louder voice than any hitherto heard on our streets, but the fact remains - either we went to war or we didn't, and - rightly or wrongly - Blair had decided to support Bush's action. Once that had happened, there really wasn't anything that could have been done to placate the many many many people who marched for peace, apart from a total reversal of policy. Blair knowingly painted himself into a corner.

You might say "yes, but what I mean by 'heard' is 'heard by the policymakers' rather than the press". But what, then, does it mean to be "heard" in this case, unless it is to have one's views reflected in policy? A nod and a wink barely covers it.

On the other hand, it does seem that loads of people feel ignored, and this is undoubtedly a terrible thing. But again, I feel this comes down to what I said originally: I believe that democracy is, on balance, a good thing. If you can prove to me that a majority of people in this country opposed our involvement in the war, then that would be the strongest argument (for me) in your favour. But of course, this is a facile challenge, because we both know there's no easy way of doing that. I say it merely to make this point: even if 2 million people are on the streets, it still doesn't constitute a majority. Of course, your comments suggest you do not prioritise the democratic principle as I do (I think?), and if so that's absolutely fine, of course. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from.

I also think there is a psychological phenomenon at work here. I think people have higher expectations than ever before in every aspect of their lives, and I think this makes many of us want answers now and want them fast. But sometimes, there just aren't any good answers. It is striking to me how many people feel aggrieved because the government took us into the war despite huge protests. But really, there is a noble tradition in this country of anti-war protest that stretches back to Napoleonic times, I believe. Never has it ever stopped a war. Why then do we expect it to do so now? Hence my raised expectations theory.

Of course, there is another important issue here, which we have skirted around and indeed you have alluded to it yourself with your monarchy comment, and that is the difficulty of making democracy work in practical terms. It should be well-known by now that I am vehemently anti-monarchy but I would still call the UK a democracy. Your point that it isn't is also admittedly true, but only if you permit merely a very specific definition for "democracy", and I am happy to allow in my practical definition for the flaws that crop up when you turn an ideology into something that has to work in practice. That is not a reason to be satisfied, of course; these flaws must be rooted out wherever possible. Perhaps this particular point is what this whole discussion boils down to. Perhaps what we are really talking about is whether or not democracy works in practice.

But here we enter a huge area of debate - a discussion for another day, perhaps?

[louis_mallow]

You're right about my views on democracy. As I said in my "solipsist" post parts 1, 2&3 at about this time last year, I'm deeply sceptical about democracy and certainly believe representative democracy to be fatally flawed.

Here's my problem with democracy; it's those people we were talking about, the ones without a clue. Sometimes they're in the majority.

What would have been enought from the policy makers? Mmm. Well, I think an alteration to their plans comensurate with the size of the opposing voice. So not a U-turn, but maybe further delay, or a decision to let the UN decide... or something.

My other problem with democracy is straight proportionality. It may well be that wanting the war stopped [for example] was a minority view. But if it was, it was a sizeable minority. To ignore it is like saying that I should ignore the British Muslim voice in my child's rural school, because it's a minority. (Hypothetical child.) Of course I shouldn't ignore it, but I shouldn't make all of the school's children celebrate Islamic holy days, either.

Democracy's great, unless you're in the minority, even if it's sizeable.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't disagree with any of this, I don't think. (Damn :oD)

I suppose the next question is...do you have a better alternative to democracy in mind?