learning05
Active Member
So I just read a few articles concerning the occupy protests happening now in Turkey. It got me thinking about a few things.
Please share if you feel any of my views are untrue/unfactual. I am no expert in the matter but would like to get a discussion going on Occupy movements, their ability to influence change, and the effectiveness of protesting.
I would also like to find a reason as to why humans can't have large scale-peaceful-protests that actually bring forth change.
Here is what I have come to believe thus far:
- Protesting is usually a last resort to bring forth change after political avenues have been tried/failed.
- Police uphold laws in which civilians have less of a say then the politically powerful/wealthy.
- The common working citizen is in a different category then a wealthy business owner. (Note I am trying not to imply the existence of classes but more so acknowledge a reality that working people have less resources and time to influence policy then a wealthy business owner).
So since occupy protests are comprised of civilians who are unhappy with the current status quo and since they always turn violent, isn't that a indication that the police are forcing "order" based off what the politically powerful want?
To some extent violence during protests is often sparked and escalated by protesters who have a different agendas in mind. I know in India in the past, political officials used to hire thugs to infiltrate peaceful protests in order to cause violence so that the police can break it up in the name of upholding public safety. This served as a way for the state to end the protest and clear out the crowds. Similar to voters being forced by hired thugs to vote for a particular candidate.
From the police officers POV, I can understand that violence is easily spread; therefore, clearing out hostile environments makes sense. But then does that mean that no civil protest can be effective since it carries a risk of escalating into a riot? Its seems counter-productive to protest knowing the police can legally force people to stop if the situations escalates to point where public safety is in question.
I also see a corrupt-incentive for the politically influential to cause violence in order to provoke police protocols, so hence why I am curious as to the nature of a large-scale protest's effectiveness.
I believe it is important for the civilian population to have a sure shot means of bringing forth change but I don't see a systemic mechanism in most countries to allow for such things. Voting seems to be the only route but that has its own challenges from time to resources required.
Please share if you feel any of my views are untrue/unfactual. I am no expert in the matter but would like to get a discussion going on Occupy movements, their ability to influence change, and the effectiveness of protesting.
I would also like to find a reason as to why humans can't have large scale-peaceful-protests that actually bring forth change.
Here is what I have come to believe thus far:
- Protesting is usually a last resort to bring forth change after political avenues have been tried/failed.
- Police uphold laws in which civilians have less of a say then the politically powerful/wealthy.
- The common working citizen is in a different category then a wealthy business owner. (Note I am trying not to imply the existence of classes but more so acknowledge a reality that working people have less resources and time to influence policy then a wealthy business owner).
So since occupy protests are comprised of civilians who are unhappy with the current status quo and since they always turn violent, isn't that a indication that the police are forcing "order" based off what the politically powerful want?
To some extent violence during protests is often sparked and escalated by protesters who have a different agendas in mind. I know in India in the past, political officials used to hire thugs to infiltrate peaceful protests in order to cause violence so that the police can break it up in the name of upholding public safety. This served as a way for the state to end the protest and clear out the crowds. Similar to voters being forced by hired thugs to vote for a particular candidate.
From the police officers POV, I can understand that violence is easily spread; therefore, clearing out hostile environments makes sense. But then does that mean that no civil protest can be effective since it carries a risk of escalating into a riot? Its seems counter-productive to protest knowing the police can legally force people to stop if the situations escalates to point where public safety is in question.
I also see a corrupt-incentive for the politically influential to cause violence in order to provoke police protocols, so hence why I am curious as to the nature of a large-scale protest's effectiveness.
I believe it is important for the civilian population to have a sure shot means of bringing forth change but I don't see a systemic mechanism in most countries to allow for such things. Voting seems to be the only route but that has its own challenges from time to resources required.