Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:51:24 +0000
Subject: The integrity of protest, the hypocrisy of power


The integrity of protest, the hypocrisy of power

In the run up to the expected Bush protests in London, 
the "Commander in Thief" was asked what he thought of 
them. His answers were pretty much as expected: smug, 
self-servicing, cynical and deeply flawed. He opined that 
he thought "Freedom is a beautiful thing" and that we 
were "lucky to be in a country that encourages people to 
speak their mind." He stated that he valued "going to a 
country where people are free to say anything they want 
to say,"

There is much more to freedom than speaking your mind, 
such as having a meaningful say in the decisions that 
affect your life, your community and your world. 
Unsurprising, therefore, that the unelected head of a 
state would concentrate on freedom of speech rather than 
expose his ignorance of what *real* freedom is. 

This can be seen when Bush, when asked by reporters about 
the prospect of tens of thousands of demonstrators 
filling the streets of London against him, replied by 
saying "Frankly, I don't pay much attention to what you 
just described." However, he admired "countries that 
allow people to express their opinions." In other words, 
protest all you like, we will just ignore you. Isn't 
democracy grand? Ironically, earlier in November he had 
argued that "Soviet communism had failed, precisely 
because it did not respect its own people -- their 
creativity, their genius and their rights." For Bush, you 
can "respect" people by ignoring them and dismissing 
their genius when they fail to draw the same conclusions 
as the state.

Bush's comments do express a certain authoritarian 
mindset. After all, in democratic theory "countries" 
(i.e. states) do not "allow" people to protest or 
"express their opinions." Rather, this is considered a 
right. In practice, of course, the situation is somewhat 
different. States do not, and cannot, operate in line 
with democratic theory. If they did, they would not be 
states. No, actual states exist to disempower the many 
and keep class society going. Such rights as we do have 
were never "allowed" by the powers that be. Rather, they 
were won by long, hard struggle by the mass of the people 
themselves.

So, Mr Bush, we are not "lucky" to have even the limited 
freedom you prattle on about. No, such freedoms that we 
have are not the product of "luck." They are the product 
of struggle. If we had waited until the state "allowed" 
us to protest, we would still be waiting. As such, 
regardless of what Condoleezza Rice may think, we do not 
have the "privilege of protest," we have the right -- a 
right won by fighting people in positions of power like 
herself -- and the duty to protest.

Incredibly, for a man who championed "pre-emptive 
defence" Bush stated that he did not "like war." But in a 
sense, he was right. He did not "like" to go to Vietnam 
and so did not. He defended his country from the 
"Vietnamese threat" in Texas (when he was not AWOL, of 
course). Perhaps it was in the bars of Texas he came to 
"understand the consequences of war," seeing the 
relatives of those whose fathers were not wealthy or 
powerful enough to get them posted to such dangerous 
combat zones? Or perhaps he meant by "consequences" 
higher approval ratings and more votes (if war goes 
well), not to mention lucrative contracts and more 
profits for his corporate buddies?

Bush also commented that he could "also see the 
consequences of not acting, of hoping for the best in the 
face of tyrannical killers." That is true, in a way. His 
father and Reagan before him did "hope for the best" and 
backed Saddam, although it can hardly be said that the US 
state did not act. It supplied Saddam with weapons and 
funds, like it has so many "tyrannical killers" in the 
past and today. 

Blair got into the farce, arguing that we can protest 
("That is your democratic right"). However he asked us to 
"have the integrity to realise that without [the war], 
those Iraqis now tasting freedom would still be under the 
lash of Saddam." Has Blair the "integrity" to acknowledge 
that Iraq is an occupied country? And that Iraqis have 
been gunned down "tasting" the freedom to protest? Has he 
the "integrity" to ponder why, if Iraqis are so 
important, the occupying powers cannot be bothered to 
count the numbers they kill? Or ponder the "integrity" of 
arguing that when Saddam orders the killing of civilians 
it is wrong, but when he and the Bush Junta does so it is 
"moral"?

Then, of course, there are the fruits of the freedom 
Blair said he invaded Iraq to sow. Does he have the 
"integrity" to remember his words back in February, when 
we saw two of the largest marches in British/Scottish 
history? Blair took the opportunity remind us that in 
Iraq such protests would not be allowed. Yet his position 
was built on sand as he was simply arguing that we were 
invading Iraq in order to give them the "freedom" to 
protest and then be ignored (but we should be grateful 
that we are being ignored rather than shot by our 
"liberators"). 

Not, as Downing Street was quick to stress, that the aim 
of the war was "regime change." That would be illegal. 
No, if Saddam disarmed then the Iraqi people would remain 
enslaved. Isn't "integrity" grand? Now, with no WMD 
found, Blair is urging us "not to argue about what has 
been, but to make what is happening now work, and work 
for the very Iraqis we all say we want to help." In other 
words, do not hold us accountable for our actions or lies 
but rather help us occupy Iraq and transform it into what 
the Bush Junta, not the Iraqi people, considers best. Ah, 
to have the "integrity" to be able to talk about freedom 
and justify occupation in the same speech!

Of course Blair is at pains to stress that we have a 
"right" to protest, within the law (of course). The 
trouble is, it is up to the state what counts as 
"lawful." Thus a march to where Bush cannot ignore us 
would be "unlawful" while a march to a police (and so 
Blair/Bush) preferred location would be "lawful." Which 
is exactly the problem facing free speech in Bush's 
America. There the Secret Service is trampling on the 
free-speech rights of those who dissent. They have 
created "protest zones" and "free speech zones" in which 
protestors are being herded into. These zones are 
restricted to places that were inconspicuous, far away 
from the Bush Junta's officials (and media). They are out 
of sight, out of earshot and out of mind. Pro-Bush 
demonstrators, needless to say, are not fenced-in and not 
unimpeded by the police. Freedom of speech only in state 
permitted areas is no freedom at all. Perhaps the US 
should be trying to bring real democracy and free speech 
to itself, rather than impose its flawed system of rule 
by the rich onto Iraq?

Anarchists should not be surprised. Bush and Blair simply 
expose the hypocrisy of democracy, where the "sovereign" 
people are said to be free while being ruled by a handful 
of people. Even assuming that Blair and Bush were elected 
by a majority (or, in the case of Bush, unelected), the 
fact remains that the people have alienated their power 
and are no longer free. Rather than govern themselves, 
they pick masters. This can be seen from the fact that 
while saying they wanted freedom and democracy in Iraq, 
Bush and Blair systematically ignored both here.

Protest marches, while important, are rarely enough. They 
exist to remind authority that we can think and act for 
ourselves. They exist to show our fellow rebels that they 
are not alone and that we have the power to change 
things. They exist to show that when the state defies 
majority opinion or acts in a way harmful to the 
fundamental equality which should be at the heart of a 
free society, the governed will resist. Yet unless that 
resistance expresses itself in direct action and 
solidarity in our communities and workplaces, protest 
marches can be and will be ignored. 

That is our task, to build a social movement that no 
government can ignore, one rooted in the *social* power 
of the working class. Ultimately, protest is not part of 
statist democracy. Rather it is part of a movement for 
*real* freedom and *real* people power. It is an 
expression of the system which will replace statism and 
capitalism, libertarian socialism. That is why 
governments hate it.

Anarchist FAQ
http://www.anarchistfaq.org