The impact of the Internet on activism is twofold. First, the Internet affects conventional activism, usually by making it more affordable and accessible. Second, it gives rise to brand new unconventional “digital activism,” which may eventually displace the older type.
We should not confuse mobilization with organization -- someone still needs to direct the long-term strategy.
Social movements – spearheaded mostly by non-governmental organizations – have engaged in activism long before the Internet. Call them “civil society 1.0.” Most such movements are centralized; they have hierarchical organizational structures, pursue well-defined strategic goals, and are run as bureaucracies (even when led by very charismatic leaders.)
For many such organizations, the Internet, with its ability to reach and involve millions of people, is a godsend. Obama's electoral juggernaut is a good example of how a rigid and highly centralized campaign managed to leverage the highly decentralized nature of the Internet to its great advantage.
However, this new ability to mobilize the public around certain issues does not automatically enhance democratic life; had Facebook and Twitter been around in the early 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan would have made great use of them as well. (In the context of non-democratic states, there are many other risks as well: any online campaign to topple an authoritarian government is likely to attract the attention of the secret police, who would be quick to write down the names of all such "digital revolutionaries.”)
Much of the current excitement about the power of the Internet can be explained by its promise to bypass the hierarchies and rigidities associated with the older model of activism and usher in what Hillary Clinton has dubbed “civil society 2.0”: initiatives that are leaderless, decentralized, and not bound by any organizational structures. “The young people who ... have a URL or a Website instead of an office, [who] have followers and members instead of a paid staff, and [who] use open-source platforms instead of having a robust budget," is how another State Department official described these new actors.
It's not clear how effective these new initiatives will prove to be in toppling undemocratic governments or defending human rights. Many of the supposed gains of this new model -- the “Twitter Revolutions” in Moldova or Iran – are illusory and are based on wishful thinking rather than concrete evidence.
From a policy perspective, the question is: do we want to push traditional organizations to make better use of the digital tools or do we want to spend more resources on nurturing new kinds of virtual movements?
If one believes that effective social change, especially in tough authoritarian conditions, can't succeed without getting citizens to participate in old-school political processes – showing up to political marches, risking one's life defying the police, getting beaten up and thrown in jail – then the ability to sign online petitions and retweet links to news articles may not seem impressive. In fact, it may even give the young people living in those countries the wrong impression that politics driven by virtual rather than real protest is actually preferable to the mundane and often corrupt world of traditional oppositional movements.
But we should not confuse mobilizing with organizing. The Internet excels at mobilizing people to rally behind political causes (obviously, not all of them democratic) – but someone still needs to engage in long-term strategic organization.
As Angela Davis puts it, “The Internet is an incredible tool, but it may also encourage us to think that we can produce instantaneous movements, movements modeled after fast food delivery.” And she's right: effective social change requires more than just purchasing cool URLs – someone does need to show up at the office after all.
Topics: Internet, Politics, Technology, Twitter
Not to be confused with Protest.
A demonstration or street protest is action by a mass group or collection of groups of people in favor of a political or other cause; it normally consists of walking in a mass march formation and either beginning with or meeting at a designated endpoint, or rally, to hear speakers.
Actions such as blockades and sit-ins may also be referred to as demonstrations. Demonstrations can be nonviolent or violent (usually referred to by participants as "militant"), or can begin as nonviolent and turn violent dependent on circumstances. Sometimes riot police or other forms of law enforcement become involved. In some cases this may be in order to try to prevent the protest from taking place at all. In other cases it may be to prevent clashes between rival groups, or to prevent a demonstration from spreading and turning into a riot.
The term has been in use since the mid-19th century, as was the term 'monster meeting', which was coined initially with reference to the huge assemblies of protesters inspired by Daniel O'Connell in Ireland. Demonstrations are a form of activism, usually taking the form of a public gathering of people in a rally or walking in a march. Thus, the opinion is demonstrated to be significant by gathering in a crowd associated with that opinion.
Demonstrations can be used to show a viewpoint (either positive or negative) regarding a public issue, especially relating to a perceived grievance or social injustice. A demonstration is usually considered more successful if more people participate.
Historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote of demonstrations:
Next to sex, the activity combining bodily experience and intense emotion to the highest degree is the participation in a mass demonstration at a time of great public exaltation. Unlike sex, which is essentially individual, it is by its nature collective… like sex it implies some physical action—marching, chanting slogans, singing—through which the merger of the individual in the mass, which is the essence of the collective experience, finds expression.
There are many types of demonstrations, including a variety of elements. These may include:
- Marches, in which a parade demonstrate while moving along a set route.
- Rallies, in which people gather to listen to speakers or musicians.
- Picketing, in which people surround an area (normally an employer).
- Sit-ins, in which demonstrators occupy an area, sometimes for a stated period but sometimes indefinitely, until they feel their issue has been addressed, or they are otherwise convinced or forced to leave.
- Nudity, in which they protest naked - here the antagonist may give in before the demonstration happens to avoid embarrassment.
Demonstrations are sometimes spontaneous gatherings, but are also utilized as a tactical choice by movements. They often form part of a larger campaign of nonviolent resistance, often also called civil resistance. Demonstrations are generally staged in public, but private demonstrations are certainly possible, especially if the demonstrators wish to influence the opinions of a small or very specific group of people. Demonstrations are usually physical gatherings, but virtual or online demonstrations are certainly possible.
Topics of demonstrations often deal with political, economic, and social issues. Particularly with controversial issues, sometimes groups of people opposed to the aims of a demonstration may themselves launch a counter-demonstration with the aim of opposing the demonstrators and presenting their view. Clashes between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators may turn violent.
Government-organized demonstrations are demonstrations which are organized by a government. The Islamic Republic of Iran, the People's Republic of China,Republic of Cuba, the Soviet Union and Argentina, among other nations, have had government-organized demonstrations.
Times and locations
Sometimes the date or location chosen for the demonstration is of historical or cultural significance, such as the anniversary of some event that is relevant to the topic of the demonstration.
Locations are also frequently chosen because of some relevance to the issue at hand. For example, if a demonstration is targeted at issues relating to foreign nation, the demonstration may take place at a location associated with that nation, such as an embassy of the nation in question.
Nonviolence or violence
Protest marches and demonstrations are a common nonviolent tactic. They are thus one tactic available to proponents of strategic nonviolence. However, the reasons for avoiding the use of violence may also derive, not from a general doctrine of nonviolence or pacifism, but from considerations relating to the particular situation that is faced, including its legal, cultural and power-political dimensions: this has been the case in many campaigns of civil resistance.
Some demonstrations and protests can turn, at least partially, into riots or mob violence against objects such as automobiles and businesses, bystanders and the police. Police and military authorities often use non-lethal force or less-lethal weapons, such as tasers, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and tear gas against demonstrators in these situations. Sometimes violent situations are caused by the preemptive or offensive use of these weapons which can provoke, destabilize, or escalate a conflict.
As a known tool to prevent the infiltration by agents provocateurs, the organizers of large or controversial assemblies may deploy and coordinate demonstration marshals, also called stewards.
Law by country
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.(August 2015)
Freedom of assembly in Brazil is granted by art. 5th, item XVI, of the Constitution of Brazil (1988): Constitution of Brazil - Text in English.
Main article: Egyptian protest law
Main article: Freedom of assembly in Russia
Freedom of assembly in the Russian Federation is granted by Art. 31 of the Constitution adopted in 1993:
Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.
Demonstrations and protests are further regulated by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation No.54-FZ "On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets". If the assembly in public is expected to involve more than one participant, its organisers are obliged to notify executive or local self-government authorities of the upcoming event few days in advance in writing. However, legislation does not foresee an authorisation procedure, hence the authorities have no right to prohibit an assembly or change its place unless it threatens the security of participants or is planned to take place near hazardous facilities, important railways, viaducts, pipelines, high voltage electric power lines, prisons, courts, presidential residences or in the border control zone. The right to gather can also be restricted in close proximity of cultural and historical monuments.
Main article: Public demonstrations in Singapore
Public demonstrations are rare in Singapore, where it is illegal to hold cause-related events without a valid licence from the authorities. Such laws include the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act and the Public Order Act.
Main article: Anti-protest laws in Ukraine
Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the Terrorism Act 2006, there are areas designated as 'protected sites' where people are not allowed to go. Previously, these were military bases and nuclear power stations, but the law is changing to include other, generally political areas, such as Downing Street, the Palace of Westminster, and the headquarters of MI5 and MI6. Previously, trespassers to these areas could not be arrested if they had not committed another crime and agreed to be escorted out, but this will change following amendments to the law.
Human rights groups fear the powers could hinder peaceful protest. Nick Clegg, the then Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "I am not aware of vast troops of trespassers wanting to invade MI5 or MI6, still less running the gauntlet of security checks in Whitehall and Westminster to make a point. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut." Liberty, the civil liberties pressure group, said the measure was "excessive".
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically allows peaceful demonstrations and the freedom of assembly as part of a measure to facilitate the redress of such grievances. "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A growing trend in the United States has been the implementation of "free speech zones," or fenced-in areas which are often far-removed from the event which is being protested; critics of free-speech zones argue that they go against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by their very nature, and that they lessen the impact the demonstration might otherwise have had. In many areas it is required to get permission from the government to hold a demonstration.
- ^Oxford English Dictionary
- ^Eric Hobsbawm (2003). Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life. Random House Digital, Inc. p. 73.
- ^Analysis: Iran Sends Terror-Group Supporters To Arafat's Funeral Procession "...state-organized rallies..."
- ^Why Washington and Tehran are headed for a showdownThe Hedge Fund Journal 16 April 200
- ^Global News, No. GL99-072China News Digest June 3, 1989
- ^Cubans ponder life without FidelThe Washington Times 2 August 2006
- ^"Democracy in the Former Soviet Union: 1991-2004"Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine. Power and Interest News Report 28 December 2004
- ^Nicolás Pizzi (2012-07-29). "Militancia todo terreno: Sacan a presos de la cárcel para actos del kirchnerismo" [All-terrain militants: Prisoners are taken out of jail to take part in Kirchnerist demonstrations] (in Spanish). Clarín. Retrieved July 29, 2012.
- ^Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash (eds.), Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present, Oxford University Press, 2009, especially at pp. 14-20. Includes chapters by specialists on the various movements.
- ^Stratfor (2004) Radical, Anarchist Groups Pose Their Own Threat published by Stratfor, June 4, 2004 quote:
Another common tactic is to infiltrate legitimate demonstrations in the attempt to stir widespread violence and rioting, seen most recently in a spring anti-Iraq war gathering in Vancouver, Canada. This has become so commonplace that sources within activist organizations have told STRATFOR they police their own demonstrations to prevent infiltration by fringe groups.
- ^Belyaeva et al. (2007) Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, published by OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Alternative version, Sections § 7-8, 156-162
- ^Bryan, Dominic The Anthropology of Ritual: Monitoring and Stewarding Demonstrations in Northern Ireland, Anthropology in Action, Volume 13, Numbers 1-2, January 2006, pp.22-31(10)
- ^Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation
- ^Morris, Steven, "New powers against trespassers at key sites", The Guardian, 24 March 2007. Retrieved on 23 June 2007.
- ^Brown, Colin, "No-go Britain: Royal Family and ministers protected from protesters by new laws", The Independent, 4 June 2007. Retrieved on 23 June 2007.
- ^"America's Founding Documents". 30 October 2015.