London’s anti-Tory protests spark controversy
[dropcap]N[/dropcap]o one predicted the election would turn out the way it did. I was dismayed, as were millions of others. But I was also shocked to hear of the violent protests in London that ensued.
We live in a democratic society, and I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and the right to protest. But when those protests are over a legitimately elected government and they become violent, then it causes a problem.
Things do need to change. Our electoral system needs reform and there were problems with the election campaigns.
Such issues need to be discussed, debated, and ultimately resolved. However, a violent protest by a left-wing minority is not a proactive means of addressing concerns raised. In fact, it undermines the whole process.
Photo: Facebook/ Anti Tory
For example, this election has highlighted the need for electoral reform, possibly more than any before. Attack the system we are using, join a campaign that calls for more proportional representation.
The system needs to be changed, but it needs support from Conservatives if it is going to happen in the near future. You won’t get that by branding them all as evil, poor-bashing Satanists and calling for an undemocratic change of power.
Positive engagement is the key. The best way to affect the outcome of an election is to address people’s concerns and convert them to your political stance. A violent protest is not the answer. It alienates anyone who doesn’t fully support your ideals, and polarises people’s views.
It also doesn’t look good. This might seem shallow, but a lot of people take whatever information the media give them as truth, without critically analysing it. So, if the headlines read that there were violent protests by ‘the Left’ as soon as the election didn’t go their way, it is going to come across badly.
There are some very legitimate concerns people have with the result and its implications, but they will be ignored as the focus glares on the ‘sore losers’.
People still every right to be angry about the result, but look for methods of change that the government and the public will take seriously. By law, there can’t be another re-election in the next five years unless there is a vote of no confidence in the current government. This is extremely unlikely as the Conservatives have a majority. So calling for the Tories to be thrown out is, if nothing else, an unrealistic request.
Instead, start a petition; lobby your local MP; join a pressure group; join a political party; discuss political issues among your peers. There are countless ways for ordinary people to affect change. Protesting does play a role, but it should be seen as a method of last resort.
After all, a protest is most effective if it disrupts the norm, not if it becomes the norm.
Comments (3)
Interesting article, but rather ironically I think it falls into the same media trap that it criticizes, namely by focusing on the violent members of a largely peaceful protest. Also, it should be noted that only 37% of 67% of the electorate chose to vote conservative (you do maths so you can work the actual percentage out ahaha), also remembering that voting is predominantly a middle class institution (i.e the poor/those with most to lose/gain from who is in government tend not to vote). Of course, people shouldn’t turn to violence for anything, least of all political protest, but I thoroughly understand why people might.
I think it presents an interesting new stage of British politics though, and what appears to be a further polarisation of the political left and right. Hopefully we will see more manifestos with promises of a new electoral system next election, although i doubt either of the major parties will commit to such a policy that would damage its political power more than it would win them votes, so i expect little real change on that front. Im also not entirely sure how the public perceive these cuts, which i think are largely a permanent aspect of Conservative policy, whereas im not entirely sure the electorate has realised it. It wouldnt be the first time a political party has misled the public, nor shall it be the last sadly…
The problem is, regardless (within reason) of the percentage the electorate that voted for the Conservatives, they have the power of the government and under the current system that is legitimate. As I said in the article, if the protests were over a feasible policy change rather than something that just won’t happen, then I would have more support for them.
To me it seemed like a very much knee jerk reaction and like you said, this was understandable. But there needs to be more coherence with what the aims of any protest really is.
I like your point that those with the most at stake are the least likely to vote, which is why I think community engagement, educating those who don’t understand how politics affects them, and similar activities are more helpful in the long-run than a single protest.
I guess at the end of the day it comes down to pressure. We need to apply pressure to politicians, this is the only way we can be sure they will work for us. The question is how this pressure is most effectively generated. I don’t think the answer is a protest at the first sign of defeat.
Well i think you’ve made some assumptions there. Firstly, is the system legitimate? Its an easy assumption to make in a western first world society but FPTP doesn’t produce governments that are representative of the nations views (instead, only 37% of 67% of those views), without the possibility to change this electoral system (2 main parties wont allow it). not to mention a whole host of reasons that undermine the legitimacy of british governments (media interests, corporate interference etc.). So there is contention there. Secondly, the protests were aimed against Tory policies, namely austerity, and arguing that protests should be aimed at one policy or policy area seems parochial. But i understand that the Tories will not just walk out because of some protesters, you are correct. Nevertheless, this does not make them pointless or unjustified; people have a legitimate right to protest a government they feel does not represent the country, nor present a credible set of policies that care for the nation.
That said, the movement should have more coherence, I think you are right, and more effort should be made to engage with those who most need government, but there’s only more problems in achieving that. Generally I agree with you though, I’d just be more cautious in ruling out, dismissing or criticising protests of this sort. As you said, we need to put pressure on politicians, and what better way than pitching up outside their house.