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.

An Anarchist FAQ
 http://www.anarchistfaq.org