Exploring the boundaries and ethical obligations of protesting within a democratic society.

Pixabay

Protests are often seen as a way to voice their worries about racism, climate change, and Covid lockdowns. But this is only sometimes the case. For example, in a democratic process, we should accept the result of the democratic process and free elections for public power. Protests that don't agree with the results of the political process are seen as, at best, not democratic and, at worst, as an attempt to destroy democracy itself.

Public protest is anti-democratic at best because it tries to get the media's attention and uses non-democratic methods to get the protesters' complaints higher on the political agenda. The protesters' success rests on how much attention they can get, which is related to how much trouble they can cause rather than how good or popular their issue is. This is a kind of democracy hack, like how companies use search engine optimization to move up in Google's search results and get more attention from people who might buy their products.

At its worst, protest is anti-democratic because it rejects liberal democratic ideals, processes, and organizations in favor of a sense of rightness. Whenever it gives people less than they think they have a right to, it adds to the general weakening of democracy. Democracy is a way for people who disagree on many things to find common ground, and for it to work and stay alive, its citizens must be aware of this and be able to deal with the inevitable sadness that comes with it. If you think that being unhappy with the results of a political process gives you the right to reject them and demand that they be changed, you are rejecting democracy itself.

Most street protests happen because some groups have a problem that the government system isn't taking seriously. This sees democracy not as a system whose results decide what counts as a reasonable complaint but as a broken way to find and act on credible complaints. Even if many other people in your society haven't taken your complaint very seriously, that doesn't mean it's not a valid complaint that should be taken more seriously. There are reasons why protests might not work:

The problem isn't valid or as important as you think because other things are more important.

In a democracy, other people don't agree with you. Protesters are always sure they are right, but even if they are right about something, like climate change, their protest would not be fair. In a society, we should accept the opinions of others, even if they are wrong. Divisive questions aren't settled by arguing about the truth technically or philosophically. Instead, they are determined by talking about them and then voting.

Voting isn't a way to find the right answer; it's a way to settle our ongoing disagreements in the best way possible, showing how important it is for liberals to accept the moral equality of everyone. Political systems need to know the difference between academic legitimacy and real validity.

People who protest often think that what they are doing is political, disrespecting liberal democracy and the pledge to moral equality. They say lobbying and crooked politicians have helped the rich and powerful take over the government, threatening democratic institutions.

Protesters often see their governments and fellow citizens as tools that can be used to control or influence them. This makes them deeply dislike people who disagree with them. This makes people more divided about the problem and disgusts those picked on. This kind of polarization makes it harder for democracy to work, to separate moral questions from political ones, and to deal with different moral views.

It is important to consider the importance of truth over democracy because putting fact before democracy puts liberal democracy at risk.

People who protest rarely ask themselves if their cause is worth it. There are better ways to get people to agree with you, like saying that most people and government officials would agree if they knew what you were saying. This claim makes a lot of sense in non-democracies like China or Russia, where facts about important political problems and even how much other people back the masters and accept their lies are kept from the public.

Information and conversation are not shut down in real societies, so everyone who cares about the protesters' issue has likely heard about it.

In a democracy, protesting in public sends a message of moral anger, a violent act. In a democracy, you can't talk to your fellow people by dominating them or forcing them to do what you want. Protesting is not a good way to convince people that a problem is valid.

In a free democracy, people can protest publicly, but that doesn't mean that protesting itself is fair. In a democracy, trying to take over public space or forcefully bother others is not okay. People who live in a democracy should realize that their strong moral views don't give them any extra political power or attention.

Posted Using LeoFinance Alpha