|
I don't think this is on target. Seven years ago there were already attacks on the right to protest in democratic societies. I can remember reading slashdot in the Bush years, hearing complaints of free speech zones (where protests at major public events were constrained to certain areas). In particular growing up at that time, I understood that September 11, 2001 was some kind of a turning point between the grand old days of democracy and the modern decline, the growing authoritarian state. Before that, there have been complaints about many legislative proposals in democracies that were directed against the possibility that such-and-such a policy might be used against the general public if an authoritarian government were elected. Nowadays, complaints against similar policies are provided as prima facie evidence that the government is authoritarian. I think the distinction between these two positions is interesting and worth paying greater attention to. Anyone who is familiar with the history of democracies knows that there have always been laws against disruptive protests, whether couched in exactly those terms or otherwise. And they have always been used against disruptive protesters. One issue is that in a democracy you expect the law to reflect popular sentiment, and protesters are often protesting against the broader public. It's foolish to expect anything different. During the development of democracy, people said "there shouldn't be a law against this protest, but there is yet I will protest anyway and get arrested and people will find the penalty I will receive in their name unpalatable and it will shift public opinion perhaps moderately in my direction" whereas now they say "there shouldn't be a law against this protest, but there is, therefore we are an authoritarian hellhole". If your goal is to change public opinion, then you must direct your actions to changing public opinion, not disrupting people. If you believe disrupting people will change public opinion, that's great but describe a realistic mechanism. Weight its tradeoff and risks. Plan it and strategise and choose a method because, given the laws that exist and the power centres that exist, it will be effective. Don't choose a method because some dead philosopher said you have a right to it. Aim to be effective. There was no golden age of democracy. Democracy is just a struggle. It is a struggle to change public opinion and it is a struggle to bring public policy in line with public opinion. |
I agree, to a degree. But things are much worse now, and many measures support that (some discussed in this thread). Also, democracy includes the protection of minority rights and the rule of law; it's not rule of human and a raw power struggle.