It’s a sight of pandemonium. Police in pitch-black riot gear wields shields and batons as loud shouting encompasses the scene. The parties shove against each other, and impassioned yells and raised fists demanding change are met with expressions of stony resolve and mechanical warnings. An officer abruptly brandishes a gun, its menacing barrel pointed directly toward the crowd. He fires, releasing a torrent of rubber bullets that cut through the thick mist of tear gas and sweat. Mass hysteria ensues as some protesters struggle to leave in a panic whilst others push on defiantly. Arrests are made as the crowd continues to thin out, leaving nothing but scattered debris and a tense atmosphere of resentful surrender that hangs in the air. There will be no more resistance today.
Opposition to an established authority is one of the skills men have, throughout history, become incredibly proficient at. The inclination we possess that predisposes us to question the powers that rule over us acts as a natural defense mechanism, allowing for the preservation of our liberty. Rousseau’s The Social Contract opens with the line, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains,” which laments the loss of mankind’s freedom amidst the development of modern society. Its premise suggests the establishment of a valid “social contract” amongst the government and its citizens, where individuals surrender certain intrinsic rights in favor of the volonté générale, or collective interest of the public. The undermining of the volonté générale is constant as the systems and intentions of authorities shift in response to the changing social climate. Thus, protest dispersion is as established and widespread as the act of protesting itself, with criticism of the practice becoming increasingly relevant in light of heightened media coverage of phenomena such as police brutality in the past few years. But there is a conundrum—an ethical dilemma that traces the fine line between defense and atrocity; whose ever-volatile border seems to have, in time, left little set criteria distinguishing one from the other. Not only is this a gateway into the justification of violence under defensive pretenses, but its inconclusive nature lends to ultimately fruitless debate, distracting from the true issue at hand. Nonetheless, the complexities of the issue reach far beyond mere definitions.
Historically verified accounts of peaceful protests have been noted, but the viability of nonviolent methods of dispersion is still unclear. The many tools employed by officials to fulfill this need have been heavily frowned upon, as the decision of whether specific measures can be taken on a crowd seems to be predicated upon the fulfillment of one criterion: the avoidance of death or permanent injury. Even then, there has been much trouble in the past achieving this due to a lack of stringent regulations in many jurisdictions, which seem to instead resort to relative privation as a means of justifying the use of these methodologies. Rubber bullets only appear as a safe alternative when compared to the damage inflicted by actual bullets, when in reality both types of ammunition can inflict serious harm on the individual target. The same premise can be applied to regulations on other equipment, the uses of which are validated only when considering them as “the lesser of two evils.”
However, it would be out of a position of ignorance to not acknowledge the collateral damage some protests can cause. When public outcry becomes disorderly, it is under civil obligation to prevent further unintended consequences. Thus, there is no doubt in the minds of many that such violent measures are not only appropriate but vital to the preservation of the well-being of the general populace. Noting this, it is equally essential to acknowledge the immense power disparity between these two conflicting parties. Citizens are generally less equipped with the adequate tools and knowledge for what would be considered a level playing field, and it is under the judgment of authorities to determine a response of equal magnitude to the actions of the former. Consequently, lapses on the part of governing bodies are numerous and render dispersion counterintuitive as public indignation intensifies, catalyzing the emergence of further protests.
Enlightenment thinker Thomas Hobbes states in his publication Leviathan that, “the condition of man is a condition of war.” His political philosophy, though calling in favor of the much-outdated system of absolute monarchy, still reveals to a great extent how governing bodies view the inherent nature of man and the measures taken in response to adopting this ideology. The objective of the preservation of peace yields the natural understanding that parties such as the police have to prepare for the worst man has to offer in terms of the violence he is capable of. This, much like Hobbes’ argument behind Absolutism, poses the assumption that man in his most natural state without the influence of authority is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Though eluding the grasp of naivete, this preconceived notion and pessimistic worldview lend to a permanent distrust that manifests itself in instances where rash decisions are made against otherwise at times less-deserving protesters. Thus, it is not necessarily the flaw of governments to choose to address what is considered the “safest” viewpoint, but the ever-emergent nature of this reiterated cynicism, even in the least fitting of times.
It should be a cause for concern when authorities view instances of protest as threatening rather than indications of change or compromise. Though it may be desirable to postulate the existence of an absolute social contract that defies the volatility of societal circumstances, such a notion can only ultimately remain grounded in the depths of idealism. Protests are necessary for change, and dispersion is a natural consequence that follows. Whether either practice is justified is highly subjective and individual to the situation, but the complexities of each scenario should be nonetheless evaluated to gain insight to undertake the reparation of the distrust between the government and the general public.
— The author of this article, Alysha Simic can be reached at alysha.simic@gmail.com or follow her on Instagram @alishris.
