Politics is far too important to be left to politicians.
They are often the last people to get the message on social justice and human
rights. Much of the time, pressure for social reform is first initiated outside
of parliament by campaign groups like Greenpeace and Animal Aid, using
challenging, even provocative, methods of protest. These extra-parliamentary
activists are frequently the true sparks and catalysts of political change.
What do Mahatma Gandhi, Sylvia Pankhurst and Martin Luther
King have in common? They all used direct action protest as a way of winning
human rights and social justice.
Pleading with politicians was not their style. They tried
conventional lobbying but found that writing letters to MPs and having tea with
government ministers did not work.
Faced with an unresponsive political establishment, they
staged street demonstrations, organised hunger strikes and sit-ins, refused to
pay taxes and ambushed political leaders. By these means, India won its
independence, women got the vote and racial segregation was ended in the USA.
Two decades ago, direct action secured one the biggest ever
political climb-downs in modern British history. Margaret Thatcher’s much-hated
Poll Tax was defeated when millions refused to pay and hundreds of thousands
protested in the streets. Opposition MPs had proven powerless to stop the Poll
Tax. But when people took power into their own hands, Thatcher’s flagship
policy collapsed.
The defeat of the Poll Tax illustrates a very important
principle: ordinary people have great power, if they choose to use it.
Moreover, democracy is about more than voting once every five years. Having
your say in a general election is fine, but not enough.
Something as important as running the country should never
be left to politicians. Look at the mess they have created: their loosening of
financial regulation paved the way for cowboy capitalism and the current
economic meltdown. They have allowed criminal bankers to escape prosecution for
the mass frauds they committed. The consequences? Mass unemployment and the
decimation of people’s savings and pensions; plus savage cuts in public
services, to the point where, to save money, some patients are being refused
treatment by the NHS. It’s a scandal of monumental proportions. No wonder so
many people are disillusioned with traditional politics. Hundreds of thousands
are deserting the ballot box and turning to direct action protest instead. The
student protests and “occupy” movements are giving voice to the anger of
millions.
Sometimes, it is pointless looking to politicians for help.
They are often the cause of the problem. The vast majority of people are
against genetically modified food, but the government insists that unsafe crop
trials must continue. Three quarters of the public want an elected House of
Lords but rebel MPs have succeeded in scuppering every attempt at
democratisation. There was mass opposition to the war in Iraq but Tony Blair
and a majority of MPs rode roughshod over the people’s will.
When politicians ignore the wishes of the people and break
their promises, direct action is the only option left. Who can blame Greenpeace
for wrecking GM crops and hunt saboteurs for saving foxes from being torn to
shreds by dogs? Their methods got results when lobbying the government had
failed.
The arguments for and against direct action revolve around
two fundamentally different styles of politics. Representative democracy is the
system where MPs are elected to represent their constituents and act on their
behalf. This tends to encourage elitism and paternalism in politicians, and
disempowerment and passivity among the electorate.
Participatory democracy is, in contrast, about people being
involved in the political process in an on-going way, rather than only at
election time. They take power for themselves, instead of handing over
responsibility to professional politicians. This ensures better checks and
balances against the abuse of power and against the way MPs so often neglect
public opinion.
Direct action is the highest form of participatory
democracy. People take power and represent themselves. They get involved in
political decision-making, and through their own efforts bring about social
change.
Having taken part in more than 3,000 direct action protests over the last 45 years, the beneficial effects are self-evident to me.
Take, for example,
the issue of police victimisation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) community. By 1989, the number LGBT people arrested for consenting,
victimless behaviour was greater than in 1966, the year before the so-called
decriminalisation of homosexuality. Respectable gay organisations like
Stonewall lobbied the police, but were ignored. Then, in 1990, the queer rights
group OutRage! began a high-profile direct action campaign to challenge
harassment.
We invaded police
stations, busted entrapment operations, photographed undercover officers and
hounded the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
These were
controversial tactics, but within three months the police were pleading with us
to join them at the negotiating table. Soon afterwards they began their first
serious dialogue with the LGBT community. Before a year had passed, they had
agreed to most of our demands for a non-homophobic policing policy. Within
three years, the number of men convicted of ‘gross indecency’ (consensual
same-sex behaviour) fell by two-thirds - the biggest, fastest fall ever
recorded. Our campaign helped save thousands of LGBTs from arrest, prosecution
and criminal records.
My conclusion? Direct
action can be a highly effective way to change things for the better – and
sometimes the only way. When well planned, it works.
An imaginative protest can be a very dramatic,
headline-grabbing way to draw public attention to injustices that might
otherwise be ignored or overlooked. If you can get a protest in the news, it
helps raise awareness of the issue and puts people in power under pressure to
address your concerns.
Many of my direct
action protests have involved civil disobedience - deliberate law-breaking
modelled on the sit-ins of the US black civil rights campaigners in the 1960s.
Indeed, in the early 1970s, I was involved in sit-ins at pubs in London that,
in those days, refused to serve “queers”.
Breaking the law can
be ethically justified in three circumstances: when politicians ignore the
wishes of the majority, break their election promises or violate human rights.
Sometimes, of course,
the majority will may conflict with the protection of human rights. This
happened in Nazi Germany, where most people, either explicitly or tacitly,
colluded with the persecution of Jews. In such cases, the protection of human
rights should always trump majority opinion. No majority has the right to
victimise minorities.
Direct action can be
a vital mechanism for the defence of democracy and liberty, against the abuse
of state power or mob tyranny, as exemplified by the suffragettes and the
Anti-Nazi League.
Far from threatening
the democratic process, protest from outside the parliamentary system protects
and enhances democracy - acting as a much-needed counter-balance to the
frequent arrogance, self-interest and elitism of political parties and
politicians. Power to the people!
Written by Peter Tatchell
For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights and
social justice campaigns: http://www.petertatchell.net/
