In a recent discussion I had, protesters from the London protests over university funding were criticised for damaging property, specifically smashing in the windows of the Conservative party headquarters. The fear caused to those inside the building was also pointed to. I do not believe in violence as a way to solve problems but I found myself on the side of those causing the damage, not for the damage but for what it allowed, the occupation of the building. My reason for this is as follows:
During a strike the strikers cause disruption and threaten disruption, this then causes the employer to take notice. When people protest by marching they are not causing any disruption so force no attention from the government. Protesters must find a means to cause disruption to the normal day to day activities of government, but in a way that causes absolutely no harm to another person. Non-violence against other people is critical for credibility. To me, the simplest way to cause this disruption is to occupy government buildings and prevent them from operating. Often, I imagine, the only way this can be achieved is by forcing entry into these buildings. This I'm sure is quite illegal and I'm not advocating it.
What options are open to groups who want to cause direct hindrance to the government without causing damage to person or property? Is this even worthwhile, or is it the case that political accountability is so low that the people have no power to influence government outside of an election?
No comments:
Post a Comment