“Protest movements are an integral part of a democratic society… However, [they] do not provide a practical blueprint for how to solve problems, and we should not expect that.” By Robert Atkinson Violence may mar their message, but anti-globalisation protesters express a legitimate frustration The fatal shooting by Italian police of anti-globalisation protestor Carlo Giuliani during July’s Genoa G8 Summit has taken the increasing scale of violent protest from Seattle through Prague, Quebec and Gothenburg to its sadly predictable conclusion. Once the initial shock had worn off, many political leaders professed disgust at the way protestors had hi-jacked the agenda and denounced them as being unrepresentative. But should they be so surprised by this trend of increasingly violent protest? After all there is nothing new in the public taking to the streets when they are frustrated by the political elite. Countless examples abound in history, such as the sixth century Byzantine Nika uprising and England’s Peasant Revolt of 1381, of people resorting to violence to protest their dissatisfaction. In the modern era, the movements of the 1960s have more resonance with the protests of today. Civil rights, Vietnam and political ideology brought conflict and death to the streets of Europe and America. Indeed, many of the politicians in the G8 cabinets were active in the political movements of the ’60s. In the ’70s and ’80s, human rights, gender issues and nuclear disarmament were among the controversial issues. Protest however, focused more on non-violent forms, such as civil disobedience and provoking arrest — methods followed by many environmental campaign groups. From the late ’90s, protests have become more violent, with peaceful demonstrations or direct actions turning into riots. What does that mean for the protagonists in the debate, and why are these protestors turning to violence? In Genoa, several government delegates, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have reacted by beginning to call into question how representative the demonstrators are and complaining that the message of elected leaders was being obscured by the fighting. National governments have been trying to enter into discussion with civil society groups, notably on the removal of Third World debt, but they are resistant to pressure from unlawful protests. Message blurred by violent medium Perversely, recent events in Gothenburg and Genoa have perhaps begun to produce a detrimental effect on the protestors’ message as well. Following a — little reported — bomb attack prior to the Summit that maimed a young police officer, the Genoa Social Forum (GSF) stated on their web page: “It is no accident that this attack happens on the day when the GSF starts its activities. The attack seeks to silence our arguments.” The GSF, which represents around 800 anti-globalisation groups, went on to say: “We hope that no one is trying to create a strategy of tension, which in Italy has always been directed towards movements.” Friends of the Earth reacted to Gothenburg by fomenting a campaign in Bonn with the message: “Protest is a right — violence is wrong,” to disassociate its message from the conflict. It seems that both sides are feeling the pressure of a violent minority and a sensationalising media. So what is behind the causes that have so many prepared to take to the streets (estimated at 200,000 in Genoa) — and some of those to fight — and how many people sympathise with their viewpoints, if not some of their actions? Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, authors of the globalisation critique Empire, wrote in the July 20 New York Times: “We must recognise that this new order has no democratic institutional mechanisms for representation, as nationstates do: no elections, no public forum for debate. … Protesters take to the streets because this is the form of expression available to them. The lack of other venues and social mechanisms is not their creation.” It appears that the target of these protests is not so much national administrations, but the international and supranational bodies that govern much of the world’s processes. To the protestors, these bodies seem unregulated by, unrepresentative of and unanswerable to the citizens. A number of leaders have also remarked on the background to the protests. European Commission President Romano Prodi has said that the growth of protests indicates a “democratic deficit” in international institutions, while UN Secretary General Kofi Annan felt that “The concerns of these people are serious; we must explain globalisation better” (The Week, July 21). It seems that leaders are beginning to see that the protesteors have a legitimate cause. Hardt and Negri went on to say: “Protest movements are an integral part of a democratic society … However, [they] do not provide a practical blueprint for how to solve problems, and we should not expect that of them. They seek rather to transform the public agenda by creating political desires for a better future.” Politicians must encourage dialogue Politicians are the audience to whom activists seek to address these desires. Protestors express dissatisfaction with the course of international government and the international business community, which is seen by activists to be an uncontrollable and undemocratic driving force behind many of the negative globalisation trends. Erecting four metre fences around provocatively named “Red Zones,” for 15,000 troops and police to defend, is not a positive message for a dialogue and merely plays into the hands of the truly anarchic protest groups. Perhaps the scaling down of such events will help, but leaders should not be seen to be running away from the demonstrator’s views and should instead find venues and social mechanisms to defuse the frustration felt in a significant portion of society. Unfortunately, running away is what leaders seemed to be doing in Qatar in November. As Kumi Naidoo, secretary general of CIVICUS wrote in e-CIVICUS, for Nov. 25, civil society activists contend that the prime reason for choosing Qatar for the WTO summit was that “citizen action would be curtailed to a bare minimum.” The alternative to addressing this problem would seem to be more of the same. At the COP6 meeting in Bonn, the ¡°solidarity demonstration¡± to commemorate Giuliani ¡ª organised by Risingtide, a coalition of groups fighting climate change ¡ª showed the notable divisions between the protest groups. Risingtide had wanted to organise a silent candle-lit vigil. However, some ¡°anti-fascist¡± groups were handing out leaflets urging those present to: ¡°Do the right thing. Riot now. Robert Atkinson is head of the NGOsupport and capacity-building programmes at the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe.

Photo: MTI GENOA GETS UGLY: A man fuels the fire consuming a flipped car, above, and protestors brave tear gas to hurl bricks at police, left, in anti-globalisation protests in Genoa, Italy, held during the July meeting of G8 leaders there. The violence in Genoa eventually had tragic results: Anti-globalisation protestor Carlo Giuliani was fatally shot by Italian police officers.