I could be talking about the latest elections in Quebec and the demise of the ADQ, but there is a lot of movement on that front. Also, I read something this week (sorry, I forgot who and which newspaper) about the use of violence as a political statement that I found interesting.
The violence in Greece now is seen as the failure of the government to satisfy part of its population. The same was true with the riots in France a few months earlier. The result of a series of riots is always a will to make the reasons for people to riot disappear. What this means is that those that were rioted against will work as hard as they can to ensure that the rioters get what they want. Of course, some of the latter will be arrested and prosecuted, but, taken as a society, rioters win. Violence is an effective way to get a message across.
Coming back to our neighborhood, Montreal-North's riot achieved more to put the problems of the population in the media than the efforts social workers have been putting in for years. I'm not sure this will translate into genuine change, but this became an item of concern for every level of government (not with the same importance, of course).
The problem is that violence is scary. Unlike a peaceful march, you fear to lose something in a riot. This fear doesn't end with the end of the issue, but becomes pervasive to society. The rioters are labeled as violent barbarians and stigmatized in a way relative to the number and intensity of the riots. In the end, it is a question of gains versus losses. People intrinsically know this and usually will not get violent without a good reason: if you are cold and starving, losing a bit a reputation won't really make you change your mind. This is why, even though some riots have trivial surface reason, they always underline a deeper problem. They truly are a political statement.
4 comments:
the problem with violence is that it always needs to be escalated to shock again, people react when they are shocked and awed that can be peaceful (million man march) or it can be violent (riots). But if the violence is low level (thuggery) people tend to just be angered by it which will go against your cause, if your going to use violence you can't just beat up on a few people you have to make the city burn
violence is not the answer unless you are in a pure democratic human righteous society. In the case of canada, Montreal du Nord exemplified a quick fix to police brutality against the so-called minorities. In contrast, violence is a force to reckon with in police states since there are no limits and codes of ethics to deal with it. Greece's sleeping giant woke up after a long period of suppression at all levels and people have just had enough! The disturbing reality is when violence escalates to unpleasant consequences.
Nouaman, you forget the examples of revolutions that have occured throughout history.
In a repressive society, you stand to lose your life, which makes it a much harder choice. However, when the opposite choice means that you will probably not survive (such as it was in the monarchies in Europe), then violence becomes a viable way to free yourself.
I think that in non-democratic societies, violence is even more efficient (but more brutal).
Charly,
yea I agree that violence must escalate in order to stay relevant within a short period of time. However, in our current society (Canadian or Western), the causes for violence are few in between. the time that passes between riots actually amplifies the effect of the second one as it plays on the fears that people had time to cultivate after the first riot. In more unstable societies (for example in Haiti), violence has been so trivialized that it doesn't have a political effect anymore unless it's something downright horrible.
Post a Comment