C. Bartlett writes:
"There is no law and order imperative in converting a relatively peaceful political demonstration into an unruly riot, the only conceivable purpose of that is political. To try to cause deeper social division.
Some governments adopt this strategy, usually because they consciously or unconsciously recognise that they represent a minority political opinion themselves. By manufacturing a fake crisis of law and order they believe they can force the majority of the population to support their minority political tendency, when the majority would otherwise not have a bar of them. Its a standard strategy."
I think this is just crucially important. Since there is no law and order value to big riot lines, why use them? The answer is obviously to make the people who are protesting seem far more dangerous and foreign than they really are. It is like putting orange prison jumpsuits and excessive shackles on defendants before you trot them out in front of a jury.
C. Bartlett continues:
"Mind you, we should also be wary of people on the left who adopt the same strategy. Their game plan is to cause confrontation between police and demonstrators, in order to induce the majority of protestors to side with their fringe political tendency.
This is the strategy of the anarchist Black Bloc. They seek to recruit from the pool of existing dissidents who attend these rallies, their tactic is to provoke the authorities into repressive action which will further radicalise many of the people at the demonstration.
It is probably a very effective strategy to recruit members. Though you'll never hear them admit this is the strategy. The trouble is, it also undermines the main purpose of the demonstrations, by distracting attention from the message it was organised to make. Which is why the authorities are often quite happy to go along with the plan and allow themselves to be provoked."
Here I have to take issue with you. I like the anarchists and I like their provocations. I really do. I think it's the purpose of any demonstration to provoke the people in power. But the provocation has to be made to reveal something about the power structure and when it does reveal something about the power structure, we have to bang that message home. That's really why I have taken so seriously this issue of setting the record straight on what went wrong in Seattle. It is vital to understand that it was the police who caused the violence and not the anarchists.
The problem in Seattle was the SPD's military attitude of force and compulsion over cooperation and real public order. We see the same attitude informing almost every action of the Bush administration since 9/11. It's so easy, when faced with these problems for people to say "we need more force". That military radicalization of both public and international order leaves one with a false choice between force intended to oppress and incite and no force. It allows Republicans to call leftists Saddam-loving pansies because we reject the Bush war while any reasonable leftist despises the Baathists and acknowledges that force is sometimes necessary against such people. You just can't let the right wing define the terms when it comes to the question of force.
It seems like a small thing, I know. It's tempting for we leftists to say "Hey, cool, the Black Bloc was too tough for the cops in Seattle." But the problem is that the cops are saying the same thing. Then they use that logic to deny people their right to assemble, cordon off legitimate protest and reduce it to a sideshow. Not only that, our accepting the police mantra of "we need more force" encourages them to forget about real policing and just turn more military. When people see cops in riot lines they should not think "attempt to maintain order"; they should think "bad policing, oppression and incitement".
peace,
boddi