Protests today

Protesting as a form of political activism has changed a lot in the last century. At the end of World War I, Mahatma Gandhi led a nationwide nonviolent protest in India to shed the nation of British rule. While his efforts took over 30 years to complete, the result was an independent India. Independence was gained without a war against England.

Today, large-scale protests often include violence, particularly protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). This change has weakened the concept of protests as a form of political action. While past major protests brought about changes in both American and world awareness, today most of the world regards protesters as rowdy, dangerous, and ineffective. Before protests can again become an effective form of political activism, protesters must return to the nonviolent, passive resistance that worked so well over the last century.

Gandhi was successful because he swore off any form of violence. He urged his supporters never to counter force with force, and when they did, he fasted almost to the death. This often meant that protesters would march up to British forces that would promptly beat them down. Despite facing intense brutality, Indian protests against the British were almost entirely nonviolent. This built credibility, support, and sympathy throughout the world. Today, we regard these protesters as admirable activists, not dangerous rebels.

The meetings of the IMF and the WTO have sparked many prominent protests over the past few years. Unfortunately, these protests have often become violent and have resulted in hundreds of injuries, and even some deaths. These violent protests turn into pitched battles between the police and the protesters, with protesters matching force with force. This violence has given IMF and WTO protesters a negative view in the public eye. Mainstream people perceive them as dangerous subversives and will not consider their views until they stop appearing as violent rebels.

When protests turn violent, the protesters are not always to blame. The police often initiate the violence when confronting large protests. This practice is unacceptable. However, the police have the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As soon as protesters turn violent, the public has all the justification it needs to regard these protesters as dangerous. When protesters stage counterattacks against police forces, similar to what happened at Genoa Italy, where a protester was shot by police after attacking the vehicle the police were taking refuge in, they have taken on the role of rebels. Nothing will corrupt the message they are trying to deliver more than the use of violence.

I hope that the next IMF and WTO protests are completely non-violent. If the world watches protesters without gas masks suffer through tear gas attacks, they will get sympathy. If the world watches thousands of protesters lie down and surround the venue of the meeting, they will effectively disrupt the events. If the protesters stay nonviolent, and at no point respond to police force with more force, the world will be inclined to listen to their message. If IMF and WTO protesters can stay nonviolent, they will be effective in raising awareness and increasing debate.

The fight for civil rights and the movement to end the Vietnam War perfected protesting as an act of political engagement. Nationwide, millions of people participated in nonviolent acts of civil disobedience. Since then, protests have become more violent, and less effective. These past protests demonstrate how effective nonviolent protest can be. When large number of people nonviolently rally together, they can change the world. Why protesters would turn away from successful methods of activism is inexplicable. It is time for protesters to again pledge and practice nonviolence, and reaffirm their role in the political process.