I am inspired by the demonstrations against the U.S. presence in Iraq, by the sincerity of the participants, and by the numbers. As one who vividly remembers the anti-Vietnam War movement, both its successes and failures, I find that such participation brings back strong positive feelings. Yet, I wonder if in the years between Vietnam and Iraq conditions have changed such that the impact of demonstrations is not as valuable as it once was.
One of the observations I've made about the Iraq war is that the governments that have most supported it, the U.S. and England, have managed to insulate themselves from popular criticism and discontent. England is a really startling example. In the lead-up to the Iraq conflict Brits participated in the largest public demonstration in the history of that country; all of it aimed to deflect Britains support of U.S. policies. Yet such demonstrations had no effect and Blair gave crucial support to the U.S. invasion.
Italy is another example; even though poles consistently have shown that the populace does not support Italian involvement, Berlusconi was able to completely ignore those considerations and proceed as an ally of the U.S. (One wit said that Berlusconi approved of Bush's policies even before he was asked to do so.)
There are other examples. Some time ago at Salon there was an editorial published about the huge demonstration of women in support of Roe vs. Wade; the editorial went on to bemoan the fact that since that demonstration anti-abortion justices have been consistently appointed to the bench. (Sorry, I can't find the editorial now; it was a while ago.)
There are plusses to demonstrations that go beyond immediate changes of policy. They include 1) the knowledge that a large number of people agree with one's view (sometimes one can feel isolated), 2) the creative exchange of ideas at such gatherings can generate new insights and plans, 3) let's not dismiss the fun factor, 4) people who are marginal about a given issue may realize that many people feel passionately about that issue and look further into it.
The minuses about demonstrations also deserve consideration. They include 1) demonstrations use up huge amounts of resources in both time and money, resources that might be better spent, 2) demonstrations create the illusion that if the demonstration is large enough that will bring about a change in the desires direction. This does not seem to be the case. 3) Many people find demonstrations irritating and disruptive and this can engender a negative view of the position held by the demonstrators, 4) demonstrations tend to attract groups who want to use the demonstration to peddle their own ideology and try to tie-in various causes that are often peripheral to the focus of the demonstration; thereby diluting the effect of the demonstration and creating image problems.
I am not against demonstrations, but I think a lot has changed since the civil rights era and the Vietnam War. I think the whole question of demonstrations as a strategy needs to be rethought. Are there other effective strategies, perhaps some kind of online strategies, that would be an equivalent to demonstrations, but more effective?
I look forward to others' observations.
Dharmajim