Issues & Controversies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Issues & Controversies Last Updated: February 6, 2012 Protest Movements: Are protest movements effective ways of bringing about social and political change? Introduction SUPPORTERS ARGUE OPPONENTS ARGUE Nonviolent civil disobedience in the form of street While some disciplined, focused protests in the past demonstrations, rallies, marches, and sit-ins have a have been effective, street demonstrations have solid history of effectively raising consciousness more recently devolved into noisy, bothersome free- about political issues and changing things for the for-alls lacking organization and unified messages. A better. By working outside the political system, more effective way of bringing about political or protesters are more able to identify fundamental social change would be active political participation flaws and call for dramatic reforms. With the social such as voting or running for office. Furthermore, networking tools of the Internet, protesters are even protests have put a strain on municipal resources by more capable of organizing and sustaining mass requiring law enforcement attention. movements. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana Protesters with the group Occupy D.C. march in December 2011 in opposition of rising income inequality. Occupy D.C. was an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and was one of many mass protests that arose globally in 2011. The term "protest movement" conjures for many images of street demonstrations of previous eras. Some of the most notable protests in U.S. history occurred during the 1960s, when Martin Luther King Jr. led marches for civil rights and antiwar protesters demonstrated against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War (1959–75). Time contributor Kurt Andersen writes, "Back then, when citizen multitudes took to the streets without weapons to declare themselves opposed, it was the very definition of news—vivid, important, often consequential." By contrast, protests in more recent decades have been on smaller, less dramatic scales. Andersen writes, "Credit was easy, complacency and apathy were rife, and street protests looked like pointless emotional sideshows— obsolete, quaint, the equivalent of cavalry to mid-20th century war. The rare large demonstrations in the rich world seemed ineffectual and irrelevant." The year 2011, however, saw the resurgence of mass protest movements on an international scale, as North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the U.S. experienced large-scale protests. Some of those movements toppled governments or, as in Syria, led to bloodshed as the government resorted to military force to remain in power. Others spurred heated political debates, rattling establishment politics. In the U.S., the Occupy Wall Street movement—which squared itself against income inequality, unemployment and corporate greed—sprouted protests in cities nationwide. As Andersen wrote in December 2011, when Time magazine picked "the protester" as its person of the year, "'Massive and effective street protest' was a global oxymoron until…it became the defining trope of our times. And the protester once again became a maker of history." [See Occupy Wall Street] A protest, loosely defined, refers to the gathering of people in a public area, usually on a street or public square, to express opposition to a policy, leader or social or economic trend. Such demonstrations can take many forms and can complement or include other methods of political action like sit-ins, boycotts, labor strikes, picketing and blockades. Protests often take the form of marches through a city, and involve speeches or chants of political slogans. The theories behind the use of protests tend to be closely associated with the strategies of nonviolence and civil disobedience—the idea, embraced by many different thinkers ranging from U.S. writer Henry David Thoreau to Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi, that nonviolent civil resistance is the most moral and effective way to bring about political or social change. Despite an ideological foundation in nonviolence, protests have often led to clashes with police or counterprotesters, and some have deteriorated into riots or even spurred violent revolutions. Indeed, the revolution that resulted in the founding of the U.S. began with protests from disgruntled colonists opposing British policies. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from passing any legislation that infringes on the right to freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly, is the legal basis of the right to protest. That right is not absolute, however. Various laws and Supreme Court decisions have stipulated that the right to protest can be restricted because of concerns over maintaining the peace, protecting property and ensuring public safety. In fact, questions about where and when demonstrators can legally assemble have been the subject of several Supreme Court cases, most recently Snyder v. Phelps. In that case, the Court affirmed the right of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church to picket at military funerals. [See Supreme Court Affirms Controversial Church's Right to Demonstrate at Military Funerals (sidebar)] Some critics have recently characterized protest movements as disruptive, inefficient and sometimes dangerous ways of accomplishing political goals as opposed to more conventional methods, such as voting. Are protest movements an effective way of bringing about political, social or economic change, or are activists better off working inside the political system? Supporters of protest movements argue that demonstrations throughout history have proved effective at accomplishing political, social and economic goals. By working outside the political system and separating themselves from the corruption and complacency of traditional political establishments, proponents say, protesters can bring about more dramatic change. Even if some protests seem unfocused, they can serve as launching pads for targeted and effective movements, supporters say. Furthermore, supporters argue that in the age of the Internet, protesters have become even more capable of organizing and spreading their message. Critics, on the other hand, argue that protest movements are not effective ways of bringing about substantial change. Instead of bothersome street demonstrations, critics contend, protesters should participate in the political system and utilize democratic institutions by voting or running for office. While some protests of the past may have been organized and dignified affairs, critics say, recent protests have too often devolved into unfocused, radical demonstrations that are a drain on the taxpayer and a strain on law enforcement personnel. Protest Movements of the 20th Century Protests have occurred around the globe and throughout history with a wide variety of goals and with an array of results. Some protests have been peaceful; others have led to violence or even revolution. Some of history's most notable protests are: • Boston Tea Party: In December 1773, protestors opposing the Tea Act, which they felt gave unfair powers to Britian's East India Company, dumped 342 barrels of tea into Boston Harbor. The Tea Party led to a deterioration in the relationship between Britain and its American colonies that ultimately resulted in the American Revolution (1775–83) and the founding of the U.S. • Suffragist Movement: The battle for women's right to vote in the U.S. involved many marches and demonstrations. In 1916, suffragist Alice Paul led a congregation of the National Woman's Party to the White House, where picketers were arrested by police and physically assaulted. Supporters of women's suffrage hoped that President Woodrow Wilson (D, 1913–21) would urge Congress to pass a constitutional amendment giving women voting rights. Legislators passed such an amendment, the nineteenth, and it was ratified in 1920. • Salt Satyagraha: In 1930, Gandhi led tens of thousands of Indians on a 24-day march to Dandi, a seaside town in India. India was a British colony at the time, and the British controlled the production and sale of many commodities such as tea and textiles. Gandhi led the demonstration to protest a British law prohibiting Indians from making and selling their own salt; at the end of the march the protesters illegally obtained salt from the ocean. That protest and Gandhi's philosophies of civil resistance and Satyagraha— meaning "insistence on truth,"—led to years of similar protests and acts of civil disobedience until the British Parliament finally granted India autonomy with the Indian Independence Act of 1947. [See Protesting and Civil Disobedience (sidebar)] • Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Civil Rights March on Washington: In the late 1950s and early 1960s, King led numerous demonstrations and boycotts to protest the mistreatment of African Americans in the U.S. In 1963, he led more than 200,000 demonstrators on a march from the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., to the Lincoln Memorial, where he delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Historians credit the march and other civil rights protests for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and unequal voting requirements, along with other institutionalized civil rights violations. King strongly adhered to the principle of nonviolence, a stance that Malcolm X and some other civil rights leaders rejected, arguing that force may be necessary for victory of the movement. • Vietnam Protests: In the 1960s, U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War became increasingly unpopular.