View of George V statue from my office
When people demonstrate outside Parliament, they tend to congregate in Parliament Square. It has space for large demonstrations and it faces the Commons’ end of the Palace of Westminster. Some groups, however, demonstrate by the George V statue opposite the Lords’ end of the Palace. As I mentioned in my previous post, I get a good view of them from my office.
When demonstrations are held, they rarely achieve what one would assume to be their purpose, that is getting a message to parliamentarians. Placards tend to be too small to be readable from across the road. Chants tend to be too indistinct or drowned by the traffic in order to make out what they are. If I notice that there are demonstrators across the road, I more often than not have no idea what they are demonstrating about.
Is such activity, then, a waste of time? Not necessarily. I suspect one advantage is psychological. It brings like-minded people together to get something off their chests. More instrumental in terms of the particular cause they are espousing, the demonstrations are often designed to attract media attention. We may not notice them, but photographs of the demonstration outside Parliament can be used to show that the case is being made. If they attract media attention, then indirectly they may be able to influence parliamentarians.
The demonstrations can occasionally be noisy but if people are keen to make their views known I have no problem with that. Indeed, I think it is important for Parliament that demonstrations are considered newsworthy because they are held outside. It is when demonstrators ignore Parliament completely that we have real cause for worry.
I feel it is quite wrong that protesting within 1km of parliment is illegal without prior consent from the police. It strips our democracy of what makes it work so well. After all the big protests go ahead anyway because the police cant arrest everyone. So it raises the question, does there need to be a change to the terror legislation? After all if members of Hamas get to protest illegally about the bombing of Lebanon and get away with it, yet peace protesters protesting illegally but in a smaller group get arrested what kind of message is being sent to the people.
I’ve always felt that protesting is a waste of time and money, I don’t think that a protest has ever accomplished anything, other to inflate the egos of the organisers.
It gives the impression, it seems, to the people participating that they have more power than they do.
And thats just it, protests are for the powerless.
I am in Austin, TX, which has the state Capital. When I was in college I worked for 2 years as page in both the State House of Representative and the State Senate. I wanted to comment on two items, the effectiveness and the security aspect.
For the effectiveness, I believe Lord Norton is correct that the news media coverage is really good at getting the message out. In my experience, this media spread their message across the state, and sometime the nation. Granted, this was in the mid 1990’s so there weren’t blogs and major news on the internet yet for people to express their views. There was also and element of effectiveness because the people who work in the Capital come into direct contact with the demonstrators. While the Legislators are pretty insulated from contact, their staff members frequently move between offices and building so they do come into direct contact. These are also the same people who draft the actual legislation and give their advice on different matters. These worker’s views and approach to the legislative matter were frequently influenced by the protestors, so yes, I do think it is an effective means of getting involved in the political process.
For security purposes, I know first hand that the permitting process is a necessary element to the protest. My cousin was, and still is, the liaison between the Legislature and the Capital security force. While most small protests could go off with out a hitch and not require a permit, the larger ones require extra security so the security force needs to plan for that. You have to remember, there are people who can get very heated in the spur of the moment and a large protest can lead to violence (to people and/or property), even if it was intended to be peaceful when it started. There is also always a possibility of a counter protest. These can be planned, but frequently can develop spontaneously in response to the original protest. This is when security is essential to protect both sides and the general public. People don’t typically protest until and unless they feel very strongly about an issue. In a democracy, if you are treating all citizens and groups equally, you have to require all the protests to be permitted, even the ones that aren’t likely to really need a permit. In that respect, I must disagree with Mr. Clark’s comment. However, I do agree with the implication of his post. That is, if you are going to have a permit requirement, all protests should have the proper permits and not allowed to occur or continue without the permit.
@ Troika21
An example of protest working: the end of Thatcher’s Poll Tax.
If protests are for the powerless then there’s something wrong with our system because in a modern democracy no-one should be powerless.
freebornjohn,
I have sympathy with Troika’s view that demonstrations don’t tend to achieve very much. The classic example being the demonstrations about the Iraq War. I am not sure either that the poll tax was scuppered by demonstrations outside Parliament.
That said, surely the most important thing about such demonstrations is that they demonstrate, for want of a better word, that the campaigners believe Parliament matters. If they didn’t they would hardly take the time and trouble to demonstrate outside it. In a parliamentary state such as ours that is to be welcomed.
Howridiculous.
@ Howridiculous
Demonstrations certainly increase awareness in the mind of the public but I’m the first to admit that nothing was going to change the course of the Iraq invasion. If available intelligence and facts couldn’t make a difference then there’s no way that a demo would.
Having said that, I believe that demonstrations are part of the democratic tradition and their effects, whether great or small, should be seen as a valid contribution to political debate.