Power of the people?

People around the world are using mass demonstrations to express disappointment and to bring forth their unfulfilled demands. While, in some respects, popular protests are a triumph of democratic principles and civic activism, they also carry serious risks, including violence by and against protesters. Their spread today tells of a failure of governments, democratic and authoritarian, to listen, the less satisfied the needs of their people.

The issues in question are different. In Catalonje, demonstrators seek the release of nine separatist leaders facing long prison sentences for their role in the regional government's failed bid in 2017 to secede from Spain. In Chile, economic inequality is promoting increasingly violent demonstrations caused by an increase in tariffs in Santiago's subway.

In Lebanon, what started as a protest against corruption and poor economic management is now aimed at the removal of several-decade sectarian cleptocracy. And in Hong Kong, protesters are resisting the increased offensive of China, against civil liberties and rule of law in the city, and have already forced their government to withdraw the famous extradition law, from which all this is derived.

People can use body “retoric” of street protests when they think they can't make a difference through democratic channels, such as the ballot box. In Moscow, protests erupted this summer after opposition candidates were prevented from competing in the September elections for the city's parliament. The protest movement in Lebanon is driven by a similar lack of real democratic options. Hong Kong residents cannot vote against China's leaders.

Protests can be a powerful tool in communicating commitment to a cause, not only to leaders but also to fellow citizens who can be inspired to join this cause. And they can serve to attract the attention of the outside world: Protest leaders from Hong Kong have clearly sought international support.

But massive demonstrations often require considerable sacrifice. The actions of “civil disobedience” -- for example, traffic jams (as has happened in Beirut and London) or paralysing the airport (as in Hong Kong) can be a powerful way to draw attention to a cause, but they also put their participants in danger, either from tear gas or from arrest.

Even where peaceful protests are technically legal, participants can act against the law, whether by violating, whether by not presenting the necessary documents, or even exposing themselves to vague criminal charges such as “the breach of peace”. In the United States, civil rights movement in 1950 and 1960, protests in the 1960 ' s and 1970 ' s, and present - day demonstrations against climate change share a key feature: almost all participants have been non-violent, but have yet faced repeated arrests, sometimes on a large scale.

The dangers are caused by deliberately violent protesters, who may view their actions as justified but ultimately undermine the cause by opposing potential allies, justifying government shocks and jeopardising other protesters. Hong Kong where most protesters are non-violent is an illustration case.

If a protest movement succeeds or fails, it depends largely on the media. “Police press violent protests”, is obviously a very different title than “Police violently press protests”, nor does it send the same message as “processors and police crash”.

Moreover, images of dramatic moments like a high profile arrest or a human chain can leave a deeper impression on the imagination of the general public than on debates or slogans. Some of the most powerful protests against the Vietnam War included members of the Bucharest Theatre and Vermont dolls, dressed in costumes that reminded of the suffering that war was causing.

Similarly, the four colored students protesting the post-gregation in 1960 by sitting quietly in restaurants for white in Greensboro, North Carolina may not have helped promote a massive move to integrate food facilities throughout the South of America if local media did not share photos. In the same way, the media may not have reported beautifully on their case if they had not given a strong illustration of the inadequacy and arbitration of racial prosecution.

The lack of options of protesters to deal with harmful or unfair governmental policies gives legitimacy to their actions. How, except through street demonstrations, could Hong Kong residents have mobilised global media for the proposed draft law on extraditions? The same is true of Hungarians protesting a “slave labor bill”, which drastically increases the amount of overtime companies may seek; The Philippians, who condemn the untrial killings of suspected drug dealers and drug users; and Brazilians who oppose the catastrophic environmental expansion of agribusiness in the Amazon forests. In all three countries, right-wing populist leaders have been undermining democratic systems that brought them to power, and must be held accountable.

But protesters need to be careful: media influence is a two-sided knife. Images of some protesters in Hong Kong that destroy windows or drop gasoline bombs damage confession, that it is the Chinese state that is operating against rule of law. Now, there are leaders of China who can use global media this time to discredit the protests.

With inequality, populism, and increasing authoritarianism, it seems likely that mass demonstrations will remain a part of the global policy for the near future. No doubt governments will try to destroy them. But, in the absence of a greater institutional response to complaints and popular demands, people are unlikely to stay home.

The world.al