Protest: An Essential Part of Democracy

image

History presents us with myriad examples of non-violent resistance contributing to societal change. Many countries have won their independence from colonial powers with the assistance of peaceful protest, including Samoa and, perhaps most famously, India under the guidance of Mohandas Gandhi. Soviet control of Eastern Europe was loosened by advocates of peaceful resistance like Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia and Lech Walesa in Poland, while the power of the people eventually helped topple the Berlin Wall. Suffragettes chained themselves to fences and Martin Luther King marched with the people of Selma in order to gain votes for women and black Americans. 1968 saw people around the world raise their voices for civil rights, women’s rights and in dissent against the war in Vietnam and nuclear proliferation. New Zealand has a long history of non-violent resistance from Te Whiti O Rongomai in Parihaka in 1879 to conscientious objection during WWI and the 1975 Māori hīkoi (land march) to the protests in the 1980s against the Apartheid-era South African rugby tour and nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Regardless of whether such protests are successful or not in affecting change, the ability to challenge the decisions of those in power and to openly express opinions, is enshrined in the documents of democratic societies. The Human Rights Act guarantees the freedom of assembly and association along with the freedom of speech, while New Zealand’s 1990 Bill of Rights Act promises the ‘right to public protest’. The New Zealand Encyclopaedia Te Ara describes public protest as a “democratic tool” and “an important aspect of New Zealand’s participatory democracy. It is a way for people to have their voices heard by politicians and, conversely, for politicians to keep abreast of community concerns. This encourages stable government“.

image

Selma, Alabama, 1965

Examples of peaceful protest being quashed, such as in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989, are viewed as indicative of repressive, despotic regimes crushing the rights of their people. Democracy and protest are intrinsically connected, and yet there are many examples of governments in democracies lashing out with intimidation and violence when challenged by protest movements. The first attempt by activists in 1965 to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge between Selma and Montgomery made international news when photographs of police brutality were made public. Violent confrontations occurred between police and protesters during New Zealand’s Springbok actions. The French government arranged for secret agents to detonate an explosion on the Greenpeace protest ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour. Such violent responses to peaceful protests have often caused a backlash which ultimately benefited those protesting by gaining the movement more sympathy. As a result, governments and their attendant media now focus on another tactic for quelling dissent, that of discrediting or demonising the protesters.

Auckland, 4th Feb 2016

Auckland, 4th Feb 2016

The 2009 worldwide Occupy movement, against inequality and the bailing out of the banks in wake of the financial crisis, was regularly portrayed as a bunch of layabout, anti-capitalist, hippy socialists and this image of protesters is an enduring one. This week in New Zealand thousands of people took to the streets in protest against the TPPA trade deal being ceremonially signed in Auckland. Prime Minister John Key relied on his default description of the crowds as “rent a protest” saying, “you’re always going to get this, as a bit of a cause celebre for the left“. He also used another familiar tactic of belittling the protesters, questioning their intelligence and claiming they are all “misinformed“.
If people have a serious beef to make they should actually have a look at the commentary out there, because the commentary defeats their arguments very strongly“.
This in spite of the fact that many academics, political figures and organisations, in New Zealand and around the world, including US Senator Elizabeth Warren, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, Medicin Sans Frontiers and the World Medical Association, have all voiced serious concerns over the trade deal. There have also been protests in many of the other signatory countries, including the US, Japan, Chile and Malaysia. Key also relied on the argument that ultimately the protest, which stopped traffic in the city centre, was a public inconvenience and that that was more important to most people than the details of a trade deal that will impact on the future of the country, saying Aucklanders would be “pretty disappointed and a little bit confused” as to why people were protesting.  Even worse than this belittling and patronising of protesters are the other examples of them being portrayed as unruly delinquents or violent troublemakers. Right-leaning radio presenter Paul Henry, while interviewing TPPA critic and law professor Jane Kelsey prior to yesterday’s protest, insisted the protest would end in violence. He employed the language of confrontation, describing, “the rabid mob outside the building” and stating, “there will be banshees turn up today and be violent“. He was gleefully willing a violent confrontation in order to discredit the whole protest movement, one which he openly disagrees with. In actual fact, not a single arrest was made.

Resistance to public protest is to be expected by those whose authority is being challenged and, to a lesser degree, by the mainstream media, who seem increasingly to be content with accepting the status quo. However, what is most disappointing is those members of the public who are accepting the politicians’ and media message and are content to see protest as an unnecessary waste of time or inconvenience. Some online comments yesterday expressed a combination of apathy and antagonism and included, “Did they achieve anything? Oh apart from annoying countless people that is?” and “Why even protest though? It’s already been signed.”  Many were content to bolster the image of the protester layabout: “Why don’t these people have jobs to be at!! We will need that bloody agreement if people are just going to keep taking days off for this protesting crap!“,  “get a job stop claiming wat ever benefit you are on [sic]” and “Maori bludgers“. Thankfully, countless more contributors were able to respond to these criticisms. Some explained that the agreement still has to be ratified by the signatory countries, including the US, and so is not yet a ‘done deal’. Doctors, lawyers and people of many other professions explained that they had attended the protests due to genuine concerns over issues such as Pharmac and drug licensing and the potential legal fallout from ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) tribunals. Others pointed out that exercising their democratic rights to protest, about an issue over which there has been no public consultation and when we are still a long way away from the next general election, is important enough to take a day off work. One commentator, a company CEO who had given her employees the option to attend the march explained that, “sometimes not everything is about money but about following what you believe is best.”

image

Protest is an integral part of our democratic process. In a system were we don’t have referenda on every issue, and the dichotomous nature of party politics means we may not agree with all of a party’s policies, peaceful resistance is a way of raising matters for discussion. To say we have the opportunity to vote every 3 (or 4 or 5) years is not enough, as we may not assent to every decision that is made in that time and we shouldn’t spend the years between elections apathetically accepting our collective fate. Nonviolent protest is part of the process of informing our elected government how we feel on individual issues and holding them accountable for their decisions. Rather than mock or belittle or criticise protests and those involved, every citizen should be as protective of this aspect of democracy as they are of the right to elect our officials. I’m sure that if one day a leader came to take away that right to vote, many more people would find themselves taking to the streets to exercise their remaining democratic right.

5th February 2016

The TPPA: Not as Uninformed as Key Would Like

3news.co.nz

3news.co.nz

Last weekend saw the people of New Zealand take to the streets in protest at the secrecy surrounding the TPPA, a Pacific-rim free-trade agreement currently being negotiated by 12 nations. These demonstrations followed earlier events voicing concerns in other potential signatories including Australia, Japan, Malaysia and the US.

Following the protests, Prime Minister John Key gave an interview to breakfast television host Paul Henry  in which he dismissed the protests. He painted a picture of anyone expressing doubt around the agreement as anti-trade, anti-business looney-left greenies, or suffering from a case of ” misinformation”. Henry, never known for objective journalism, displayed particularly sycophantic toadying by leaving this portrait totally unchallenged.

Key typically employs a paternalistic, ‘we know what’s best for you so just trust us’ style of leadership. Any challenges are met with demeaning and belittling, as experienced by Man Booker Prize-winning writer Eleanor Catton when she criticised the NZ government earlier this year. Key expressed disappointment at her lack of fealty then dismissed her as, albeit a talented and intelligent writer, but lacking “political insight”.

As well as the recent TPPA public protests, Key has also ignored the concerns of professionals in the industries likely to be impacted by the trade agreement. Last May, a letter signed by over 400 NZ health professionals was sent to the Prime Minister, expressing “serious concerns” about the TPPA, particularly surrounding the impact of ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement), which could be used by corporations to challenge government regulations, such as those concerning tobacco, pharmaceuticals and fossil fuels.
The TPPA threatens the future of health in NZ, by elevating “investor rights” of transnational corporations over the right of the New Zealand people to develop, adapt or improve domestic regulatory policies according to changing health needs”.
The medical professionals requested transparency surrounding the concessions being made in the TPPA negotiations and for an independent assessment of any deal before finalisation. These requests were dismissed by the government with the argument that trade agreements have always been conducted in secrecy.

While Key obviously refuses to give credence to the concerns of ‘ordinary’ citizens, is he also willing to ignore the expertise and opinions of his fellow professionals in the fields of law, economics and politics?

Last July, at the Australian Supreme and Federal Courts Judges’ Conference in Darwin, the potential harm of ISDS was discussed. In their examination of the possible repercussions of including ISDS in free-trade agreements, the example of Philip Morris taking legal action against the Australian government’s policy of plain packaging for cigarettes was given.
The possible inclusion of an ISDS provision in the TPP has become an issue of intense debate with some critics seeing it as a Trojan horse for the enhancement of the power of international corporations at the expense of national sovereignty and interests.

The UN has also expressed concern surrounding FTAs (Free Trade Agreements):

There is a legitimate concern that both bilateral and multilateral investment treaties might aggravate the problem of extreme poverty, jeopardize fair and efficient foreign debt renegotiation, and affect the rights of indigenous peoples, minorities, persons with disabilities, older persons, and other persons leaving in vulnerable situations… Investor-state-dispute settlement (ISDS) chapters in BITs and FTAs are also increasingly problematic given the experience of decades related arbitrations conducted before ISDS tribunals. The experience demonstrates that the regulatory function of many States and their ability to legislate in the public interest have been put at risk.”        

The UN paper recommended that;
All current negotiations of bilateral and multilateral trade and investment agreements should be conducted transparently with consultation and participation of all relevant stakeholders including labour unions, consumer unions, environmental protection groups and health professionals. All draft treaty texts should be published so that Parliamentarians and civil society have sufficient time to review them and to weigh the pros and cons in a democratic manner… Given the breadth and scope of the agreements currently under negotiation, robust safeguards must be embedded to ensure full protection and enjoyment of human rights.

Meanwhile, in the US, economist Robert Reich, who served in the Ford, Carter and Clinton administrations, has described the TPPA as a “Trojan horse in the global race to the bottom”

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also expressed concern at the level of secrecy for the negotiations and the bargaining power being giving to pharmaceutical companies.
The efforts to raise drug prices in the T.P.P. take us in the wrong direction. The whole world may come to pay a price in the form of worse health and unnecessary deaths.”
Within the US Democratic Party, Senator Elizabeth Warren has made a characteristically eloquent yet powerful appeal to President Obama to reconsider his stance on the deal.

Evidently New Zealanders are not alone in their doubts surrounding the TPPA and their calls for more transparency.  In spite of the secrecy being maintained by the governments involved, people are not protesting blindly, but are supported by professionals and experts within the highest levels of law, politics and economics. Citing “misinformation” is a convenient way for John Key to offhandedly dismiss any dissent but the citizens are not completely uninformed and misinformed and it is insulting of the Prime Minister to suggest so.

Posted 19th August 2015

The New Zealand Flag: An Exercise in Legacy and Nation Building

image

John Key and the National Party government in New Zealand are pressing ahead this year with a series of two referenda affording New Zealanders the opportunity to change the national flag. Firstly, I am not disputing that there is a need for New Zealand to reflect upon its imperial past and its relation to modern-day NZ and, if that results in a desire to remove the Union Jack from the flag, so be it. However, if this is the motivation behind the move to change of flag, then why does the current debate not also include other symbols of our country’s colonial past: the Queen on the currency, our retention of the monarchy and membership of the Commonwealth? I suggest the answer to that lies in the fact that the current flag debate is not being driven by the New Zealand people but by Prime Minister John Key, a confirmed and strident constitutional monarchist. While Key is desirous of the political legacy which will be his if he can lead the country to a new flag, he wants to do this without jeopardising future invitations to play golf and hunt grouse with Prince William at Balmoral. He wants the freedom and simplicity of a separation without the acrimony and legal wranglings of a divorce.

The referenda are being met with resistance by many, most vocally so far by the RSA, who highlight the ill-timing with 2015 being the centenary of the battle of Gallipoli, which has been marked all over the country in commemorative events. Many servicemen see the suggestion of a change of flag as an insult to all those who fought and died for it in both World Wars and other international conflicts (http://rsa.org.nz/News/RSAOpposesTimingofFlagReferendum.aspx). There has also been some discussion of the order of the referenda, the first voting for an alternative design followed by a second to choose between that and the current flag. While for many it would be a more sensible option to ask whether people actually wanted change first, there is also logic in offering an alternative first. However, this option, chosen by Key, certainly weighs the dice in favour of a final ‘yes’ vote

Questions have also been raised over the cost of such an exercise. The referenda themselves will cost over $26 million dollars and this doesn’t include the costs incurred in implementing the changes, including replacing all official flags and military uniforms. Many feel that the flag is not a priority when the country remains in deficit and would benefit from the money being injected into health or education instead. In fact, there seems to be little desire amongst the public for the flag change at all. A recent poll measured the desire for change down from 40% last year to just 25% now (http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11441353). And yet John Key charges on regardless.

This is just the latest display of the Prime Minister’s growing arrogance and off-hand dismissal of the issues which actually matter to the people of New Zealand; be it his refusal to address concerns over the GCSB Bill, his determination to ignore the results of a Citizens’ Initiated Referendum on asset sales, or his outright and continued denial of the Auckland housing crisis. His personal desire to be the man remembered for changing the New Zealand flag seems to override all other considerations in this issue.

image

Key is personally very much advocating the inclusion of the silver fern in the new flag, although he has recently backed away from having this on the black background in an attempt to distance it from any comparison to the flag of Isis. And this raises another issue in the flag debate. Key has stressed in interviews the importance of flags in the building and representing of national identity, linked to ideas of belonging and patriotism. He cites the example of US citizens proudly wearing stars and stripes t-shirts and baseball caps and has a desire to see New Zealanders doing so with the silver fern. But nationalism and patriotism are invariably tied up with feelings of exclusion of others, so how much does the timing of this current debate reflect levels of insecurity and fear in today’s world? Could the flag debate be not only symptomatic of our leader’s desire to have his name written into the country’s history, but at the same time a futile attempt to circle the wagons of nationhood to protect from the perceived outside influences and dangers of this truly global world.

Links
John Key Defends Cost of Flag Referendums
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11349998

Video – John Key on Changing the NZ Flag
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/auckland/leighton-smith-show/video/zbtv-john-key-on-changing-the-nz-flag/

15th May 2015