The modern protester
They are regularly on our news channels, hoards of them, ranging from delightfully young but shockingly rabid college students to the scruffily dressed oppressed without jobs or formal education, and many other combinations, including some who sacrifice a vacation day, are well and variously informed about the issue at hand, are averse to throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, and would be able to participate intelligently in a conversation on the nature of truth.
Protesters in the past have won for us all freedoms we take today for granted, and while many who preach Liberté ou la Mort usually hold the interjection "someone else's" as understood, we must be grateful towards all who stood up against tyranny. Drawing on Koestler's idea of civilizations having various internal levels of progression, let us exclude from the current discussion those who unfortunately still must fight for personal liberty and currently accepted ideas of human rights. They need no justification and are beyond the pale of constructive criticism. Let us instead use the phrase "modern protester" to designate those living in a liberal democracy who feel at odds with certain policy decisions of a government elected by themselves or by their neighbours and choose to express this difference of opinion by publicly visible protest marches, sit-ins, slogan-chanting and, occasionally, vandalism, arson and murder.
The first pertinent question is: why a march? Why not a letter written to the local Member of Parliament, and another to the local newspaper, a door-to-door signature campaign, perhaps, a notice hung in the local coffee shop or public house, or a declamation on market day, positions outlined on blogs, emails sent to even second cousins etc.? One answer is that a march helps to raise public awareness and force the government's hand. Both rely upon a brute-force method - if we shout loudly enough, and increase people's commute-times and generally be enough of a nuisance, we will inevitably intrude upon the masses, forcing them to take a stand, any stand, our stand. If enough people get upset, the media will circle in, causing even more people to think about the matter at hand, eventually leading all politicians desirous of re-election (i.e. almost all of them) to formulate responses.
Note also that most protest marches are usually not fora where a debate is held, or can be held. It is dangerous to talk to a mob, even one not wielding pitchforks, and small, rectangular pieces of cardboard only hold reduced and over-simplified positions. Public awareness is indeed raised, but only in that the public is made aware that some feel strongly about a certain subject, and not what the various facets of said subject are. Indeed, in this sense, protest marches represent the darker side of democracy, the might of the mob, of inflexible, monolithic opinion over knowledge and discussion. Especially when protest marches move from being of a purely symbolic nature to one where the hands of protesters are used as main force - in this case, we might as well declare that the State Must Die and consider whether not all social institutions must be destroyed and whether the non-marching majority is entitled to an opinion and if one really needs to consider its wishes.
The second, and related, question is: should protest marches be allowed at all in a liberal democracy? The government is by the people, the courts and the constitution exist to check excesses and the legislator's contract was signed for a number of years. Note that the holding and dissemination of diverse opinions and public assembly is not being questioned here, and while there is a thin line between public assembly and protest march, we question here the motive, not the actual marching. Let the people march, if march they will, but let us not allow all policy matters to require protest marches - these impinge on the freedoms of others, the freedom to enjoy a quiet day in the park, the freedom to get home to pet dog or lover at seven in the evening, the freedom not to have reduced quality of healthcare because the state's budget was consumed paying the bills of policemen or because the public health system was occupied in tending to those who exposed themselves to harm because they are unable to articulate their ideas on a piece of paper and divert cash outflow to paying for postage.
A blanket ban on marches is dangerous for that would grant too much power to the state. Let those march who march must, even if because they only marching know.
However, let us consider that there is nothing inherently noble or morally superior in protest-marching. They serve too, who, instead of marching, toil to pay taxes to provide for the heating of shelters for the homeless elderly, who clean streets in unglamorous uniforms, outside the glare of flashbulbs, who compose violin quartets or low-fat pastries for a small minority etc.. The much maligned majority too deserves a voice.
