|
Ideally protests should be peaceful. When there's no consequences for bad authoritarian behavior, you get more of it. Your plea for law and order is (probably inadvertently) a plea for the ongoing dominance of the established order. If it's peaceful only because everyone is afraid or unable to resist, then what you have is a police state. And in authoritarian societies like that, peaceful protest doesn't make any postive difference whatsoever, while often making things noticeably worse for the protesters. Even in places like the US/UK, nonviolent protests attract violent repression and call by some people for even more violent repression. Simply passively standing against the established order is treated by some as a license to commit violence upon the protesters. You are right about Bangladesh having a lack of capital and the costs of rebuilding, but you're basically arguing that capital matters more than the people in society. I'm sure you would never advocate just killing off/stripping the rights of some % of the population to increase the average wealth, but that's exactly what authoritarian regimes do in practice. There's always a favored in-group (sometimes described as a 'selectorate', imbued with sufficient political power to prop up the incumbent regime in exchange for policy rewards) and a disfavored out-group (the wrong ethnicity, or the wrong idea-havers, or the wrong socioeconomic class) that gets saddled with the costs. The recipe for successful authoritarians is to strip wealth from the out-group(s) fast enough to keep the in-group happy but not so fast that the out-groups decide they have nothing to lose or that their loss rate is unacceptable, causing them to react violently against the authority structure and/or the in-group that benefits from it. Capitalistic abundance through the satisfaction of demands by enterprise and markets is a nice idea, but it is in no way guaranteed. Very often the beneficial goods and services come with negative externalities (pollution, waste, second-order effects) that do not fall on the consumer beneficiaries. Capitalists and industrialists (who are often but not always the same) frequently avoid accounting for these; where they do acknowledge the problems, they promote changing consumer behavior to mitigate the problem, recycling being the most obvious example. Sometimes this is effective, often not. The problem is that you don't have to generate positive externalities to succeed in a capitalist system; you can have a zero- or even negative-sum strategy and still win in many situations, as long as you are good at divide-and-conquer and frustrating attempts by your detractors to coordinate against you politically/economically. This is why corporations spend so much money on lobbying lawmakers and regulators, and also why branding is such a huge industry, differentiating products as much as possible while downplaying the identity of producers to minimize the appearance of oligopoly. |
That said, law and order is needed to sustain the population. The pop density of BD is incredible - imagine half the population of US crammed into the state of New York. Systems and processes were what BD out of being considered a “basket case “ as Henry Kissinger (?) once famously called it. A lot of it were built by NGOs and private parties.
Now you have these students who are protesting something valid. But they are also not mature enough to realize that if they start burning away the optical fibers and data centers, they’re destroying the systems they are using to self-organize.
And what happens once they topple the govt? Who runs their nuclear reactor and power stations? Who runs their comms?
Let’s not throw away the baby with the bathwater and try and find a more reasonable way.