Look at it this way: protests are a part of the dance between government and the public. When political candidates are running for a spot, they campaign for votes by presenting their platform. On the other side of things, when politicians are in positions already, people might protest their actions or, more generally, the state of things in one area or another. Protests, then, are a kind of campaigning by the public. Politicians campaign by telling the public what they'll do, whereas the public campaigns by telling politicians what they want.
If you think about it, it's some pretty sweet feedback. There are two main ways that politicians get feedback from potential voters. They can either conduct formal surveys or they can pay attention to the public's actions, whether it be petitions, protests, or other street actions. The larger, the most important, in both respects, but which will yield more genuine results, the surveys or the public actions? What would you give more weight to? What the public tells you when you ask, or what the public tells you without your prompting them at all?
Although you probably won't find many examples of direct correlation like during the civil rights movement, I would suggest that protesting has at least some effect. It all depends on the scope and whether the protests/movements/topics are high profile.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-01-2010 at 03:35 PM..
|