Is there a place for violence in protests?

A view of the recent student protests in London

As students continued to demonstrate last week against the Coalition government’s education reforms which began a year ago, commentators on all sides sat tight and asked ‘will they or won’t they?’ There was fear among many that the protests would descend into the same violence we saw last year, when some protesters assaulted Tory headquarters at Millbank Tower, smashed police vehicles and defaced the area around Parliament Square. These demonstrations drew heavy criticism from commentators, politicians and student leaders themselves for assuming violent tactics. As the argument goes, since we live in a democracy, there is no excuse for resorting to violence when we have at our disposal peaceful channels of protest. In both cases, pacifism as well as with adventurist stunts, violence is viewed as something abstract, rather than in terms of its relationship to the demands of the cause itself. Both sides display a short-sighted view of history and express a narrow definition of democracy as a pragmatic, technical process rather than something that arises from the depths of society.

There seems to be an assumption that the democratic rights and freedoms we enjoy today are but the gift of a benevolent state. On the contrary, they are actually the outcome of bitterly fought out struggles, often involving violence, acts of terrorism and deliberate law-breaking, now generally regarded as legitimate in retrospect. From the Chartist struggle for male suffrage and the suffragette struggle for female enfranchisement through to the armed anti-colonial struggles that forced imperialism out of India and Africa, we see that social and political movements have often involved conflict and acts of violence. So are we perhaps missing the point when our focus seems to have shifted from the politics of the struggle to the process itself?

I recently chaired a discussion on this issue at the annual Battle of Ideas festival, where the panel rightly emphasised the importance of content and context. The merits of any protest, they argued, should be judged according to the demands of the struggle itself. Likewise, when protesters themselves fetishise violence or non-violence, this is merely a symptom of the emptiness of their cause. This analysis bears out remarkably in the case of the global Occupy movement. In their protest against capitalism, the Occupy London website states ‘We are a peaceful non-hierarchical forum.’ Call me a cynic, but it’s difficult to imagine that a movement which introduces itself with these words will radically transform society, let alone turn capitalism on its head. The absence of political leadership or any coherent demands is held up by the Occupiers as a virtuous corollary of a participatory democracy. For these protesters, it seems that simply by rallying and registering your discontent a better society will magically come into being. Exactly what that better society will look like, no one knows yet. Ideology, political debate and arguments are seen to be old fashioned and it’s deemed to be enough to simply be able to say ‘I woz ere’.

Compare this to the civil disobedience that marked the beginnings of the Ghanaian fight for independence. In a famous incident in February 1948, amid a growing mood of resentment towards their colonial masters, Ghanaian ex serviceman, who fought in the Second World War for Britain were inspired to struggle against their colonists and demand their freedom. A group of unarmed ex-serviceman marched to the Christiansborg Castle to submit a petition to the Governor about their poor conditions. A white police officer ordered his guards to shoot them, but they refused, at which point he seized the rifle himself and shot dead three of the ringleaders. Instead of fighting back, the crowd of almost 2000 turned back; but not because they were pacifists. These were men who had witnessed battle and were in no way cowed by the shooting. Had they decided to do so, they could have easily taken on the police officer and his garrison and storm the Castle. The crowd retreated because they realised that to sweep away the petty resistance which faced them would be to initiate a battle which they knew they were not yet ready to fight.

Surely whether or not violence is justified in civil disobedience is more a question of what we are fighting for; and asking what the best strategy is for its success? As we see with the example of the Ghanaian soldiers, often it does not happen that you are either for violence or against it but instead, when you take matters into your own hands and you want to destroy the old order,  you make tactical decisions and don’t rule anything out. To not fight was a tactical decision for these soldiers, but to make a principle out of it would have been to surrender.

Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Institute of Ideas’ Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Saleha Ali is assistant producer, WORLDbytes and co-presenter of the documentary film, Sylvia Pankhurst: Everything is possible (2011).

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• An open letter to Melanie Phillips
• Privacy challenges ahead 2013
• Anders Breivik: Narcissist. Murderer. Insane?
• Free speech is the real loser in Terry v Ferdinand
• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice

• http://twitter.com/HavaanSoup Havaan

  violence is an act of aggression committed against a person not private property.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3j_lyTrtG0 Blackfox

  I see my Gov drop bombs to achive there aims.1000’s of innocents get killed.Troops come and get all the Help for Heroes bull from the media…   HEROES for killing.

  But my god raise an hand against the police/Gov for a Nobal cause,and watch the ensuring witchhunt by the media.  EVIL CRAZY ANARCHIST PEOPLE etc etc who dared want a fairer life.

  Suck it up people.

• kate_francis

  If protesters want to make the front page (and possibly several more inside) then the answer has to be ‘yes’.

• VFRMark

  A most excellent point of view, spot on, although the poll tax riots weren’t 100% successful because the end result was the Council Tax.
  Peaceful protest is easy to ignore.

• Guest

  If someone broke into your home and threatened you and your family would you not fight back any means necessary?  Well the rich are destroying our planet(home) and threatening all of our lives(all species) so yes-we have the right to fight back by any means necessary. 
  Unfortunately peaceful protest will only make the rich richer and our planet less habitable.