What gives mass protests their power? Is it the will and voice of the people? Is it the power of the ideals that motivate them? Is it the amount to which they adopt civil, peaceful, resistance methods? Is it their hope for the future? Or when they represent a broad spectrum of the populace? Or how much they use Twitter and Facebook?
I think it is none of these things. I believe that the overwhelming factor in whether or not a mass protest will actually affect governments and policy is the amount to which said governments have become immune to the power of the mass protest. The more experience that a government has with such protest movements, the more immune they become to the power of mass protests.
In other words, the power of mass protests to effect change in a culture is an expiring power. It is one that can be very effective, for a limited time. Once they have become part of the cultural norm, and not contrary to the cultural norm, they no longer have the power to significantly effect change. The power of successful peaceful mass protest movements almost always lies in that they rest against a cultural backdrop where such protests are completely abnormal.
Here in the United States, we have become used to seeing protest movements. We have become used to GLBTQ Pride parades and protesters outside Planned Parenthood clinics. We have become used to some gathering of people angry about something on the National Mall in our nation’s capitol about every week. We have become used to demonstrations on college campuses as part of what it means to go to college. Even when angry groups of Tea-Party Republicans shouted down Democratic Congressional Representatives at town hall meetings last year, there was never any serious worry in the U.S. Government that it was a revolution that was being fomented…
To even get noticed here, such protest movements, mass or not, have to do something extreme, like protest against gay people at the funerals of soldiers killed in war…
And that is just the point. Mass Protest Movements gain their power from the Governments they are directed at not knowing what they mean, not knowing how to respond, and not knowing whether they are a precursor to civil war. Mass Protest Movements gain their power from what they could be, not from what they are.
Here in the United States, such mass protest movements are rarely if ever connected with the idea of a possibility of violent overthrow of the government, and so they have little to no effect on policy. Sometimes they can galvanize a few politicians into finding some backbone, but that effect is almost always in politicians who agree with the protestors, not those who disagree.
Politicians here in the United States have learned a two-fold strategy to take the power away from mass protests. First, if the protest is by people you think might vote for you, you take the movement away from them and make yourself one of its leaders. If the protest is by people you know will not vote for you, then you just ignore them… or use them to anger and motivate your own base.
Let’s take what is happening in Wisconsin as an example. Governor Walker is attempting to have the Wisconsin State Legislature to pass laws that strip many of the collective bargaining rights from unionized public sector workers. Tens of thousands have been protesting for almost a week against this measure, and they have received national level support from progressives and liberals. Has this in any way shifted the intentions of Governor Walker or Wisconsin Republicans?
No. If anything, the protests seems to have made their resolve to pass the legislation even more firm. What it has done is caused the Wisconsin Democrats to hang together and leave the state, and for now I believe the power of the mass protests is helping to keep them unified (and out of the state)… mainly because none of them want to become the one Democrat it will take to pass the legislation just by showing up and giving the Republicans a quorum.
Tens of thousands are protesting in Wisconsin, and there is very little effect from it on the national stage. Why? I believe it is because such protests, even when they are this large and prolonged, are now part of our national culture, not counter to it. Being part of our natural culture, they do not cause politicians to feel concern that they could destroy the cultural contracts our society is built upon and foment revolution. Without that fear of revolution in the ruling classes, mass protests lose their power.
You see this same pattern happening in Tunisia and Egypt, where successful mass protests that sparked some kind of political change have led to mass protests for something or other becoming a near daily occurrence in those countries. The more that such mass protests become “normal”, the less and less effective they will be as a tactic for social change.
Yours in faith,
Rev. David
Brilliant! I’ve heard over and over, that the anti-war movement died after 2006. This provides the clearest explanation – it was co-opted. I would only add that politicians can ignore their own voters as well after they have been co-opted.
The protests become victims of their success. Don’t get me wrong, I would much rather be a victim of success than just a victim. I hope the current Arab protest movements achieve some lasting, institutional change before they fade away.
Provocative thoughts. I’m not sure that I completely agree, but I want to think more about this argument.
But if that’s true, a question: Did or did not the Tea Party protests in 2009 have an impact on the shape of the Health Reform Legislation that ultimately passed the Congress — in the form of creating pressure that led Congress to drop the more progressive elements like the Public Option and Medicare reimbursement for advance directives?
If they didn’t, then why did Congress cave on those elements. If they did, then does that undermine your thesis?
And finally, assuming your thesis is accurate — what takes the place of mass protests to effect social change? I don’t think you’re suggesting that they should move to threats of violence 🙂
DSD…
I don’t think I agree with the premise of your comment… that the Tea Party movement signifcantly affected the actual legislation that was passed… I think we got about as good a Healthcare Bill as we could have gotten, and the things you mentioned us not getting were far more the result of healthcare insurance industry pressure than they were the “Tea Party”… with the possible exception of the Advance Directive (Death Panel) counseling, which was more Fox News than the Tea Party.
Yet, the Tea Party is in some ways a case in point for my argument. I believe we are seeing the power of the Tea Party protest movement expire before our eyes. Remember that it seemed “new” and “counter-cultural” when the Tea Party first appeared. Now, it has become part of the norm. Republicans have tried to co-opt it… to become its leaders. Democrats have learned to ignore it.
The result is that Tea Party protests are now a set-piece performance, understood in the political landscape for Republican ends. People say that the “conservative” swing of the Republicans is because of the Tea Party, but I dont buy that. The Tea Party is being used as cover for the corporate interests that are really behind the newly conservative Republican Party.
As far as what comes next… the lesson I take from this theory is that to affect social change, a movement must be counter-cultural, and not part of the understood political landscape. It must shock the political establishment. What that is probably depends upon the moment.
And we’ll see….
Yours in Faith,
David
I see your point, although I still reserve judgment on the overall conclusion.
Here’s an unverified factoid: Reportedly, governors in IN, OH, FL and MI have backed off from provisions to gut colletive bargaining in their states. If that’s accurate, can perhaps the Wisconsin insurrection (I really don’t think that’s hyberbole) be credited with leading them to at least delay such efforts? I realize it may be too soon to pass judgment on this question, but I throw it out there for consideration…
I know I might be called a dreamer, but I still write letters to Senators, Congressman and people in power, and I believe that one person can make a difference in writing a thoughtful letter, when that is multiplied a number of times, perhaps by a number of people, possibly is more effective than a movement of form letters set up on the internet–which is one form of peaceful movement in which I have little faith. Putting original thought and effort into something is worth more than putting one’s rubber stamp on something in terms of value. Just an aside–violence is not the key people think it is– I think one reason our “violent revolution” in the U.S. formed a better country than some violent revolutions is that so much more thought, negotiations, planning, diplomacy, economic planning and discourse went into making our country than a short overthrow. We became a good country despite the violent character of our beginning, not because of it.
Pingback: A Short “I Told You So” | Celestial Lands
Pingback: Then You Win: Institutionalization and the Occupy Wall Street Protests | Celestial Lands