| The right to dissent is an integral part of a democratic society. This is based on the premise that informed discussion and debate will lead to good decision making, which in turn, will lead to good governance. It is also based on the sound premise that no individual or group of individuals has a monopoly of wisdom in matters of public policy and any input from any other stakeholders or concerned persons can only enrich but in no way diminish the richness of a final decision.
In recent times we have seen public manifestations of dissent expressed in different parts of the world and in our own country for widely different reasons. The Television Screens have brought into our drawing rooms street protests in the Arab world as well as protests like 'Occupy Wall Street' in the West. We in Sri Lanka too have seen demonstrations with regard to education issues, enforced transportation of vegetables in plastic crates, fuel price rises and a host of other matters.
In Sri Lanka, as a result of these protests, inconvenience has been caused to the public, public and private property have been damaged, two valuable lives have been lost and many have been injured, the hapless police have been tested to the maximum in their task of maintaining the peace and even the judicial process has been invoked ostensibly to prevent breaches of the peace.
While any one or more of these phenomena cannot be cited as grounds for the suppression of dissent, certain steps can and should be taken in order to prevent, at the very least, loss of life and damage to property as a result of violent action. In this the Government, State Agencies and Organizers of these protests have a duty to ensure that while furthering their own goals they play constructive roles.
Public protests in the form of demonstrations and processions can be broadly categorized into at least three groups. The first group is organized by political parties in furtherance of their political goals, the second by organized interest groups like trade unions and the third by spontaneous expressions of dissent without a clear leadership.
The responses to the three groups must be different and must be designed to address the grievances of those engaging in such protests, and in the event of lack of success in such instances, to enable them to carry out such protests within the boundaries prescribed by law.
In their heyday the traditional left were the masters of organized demonstrations, with large of masses of humanity marching along in a disciplined manner shouting slogans with political content. Rarely, if ever, did these expression of political views end up in violence or loss of life or property. Even slogans directed at the Police such as 'Ralahamymeyahanne, apithekkeendayande Galle Face' were faced with equanimity by the guardians of the law and was indicative of the understanding between the demonstrators and the khaki clad gentry fostered by the leadership of those political parties.
It was later that with the entry of less disciplined parties the demonstrations degenerated into the shouting of personalized obscenities devoid of political content setting in motion the process of indiscipline that we see today.
The handling of this first and second category of protest/demonstrations by political parties and interest groups is probably the easiest to handle and should not pose any problems if handled wisely and in a fair manner. The Police and other agencies should engage with the respective Leaders of Political Parties (whether from Government or Opposition) or other interest groups, as the case may be who are organizing the demonstrations and discuss and facilitate the modalities of such a demonstration.
The whole objective of such an exercise should be to ensure that the demonstrators concerned should be given the maximum space to exercise their right to free expression with minimum inconvenience to the public. The Police and other agencies should, in all their dealings, win over the trust and confidence of those whom they are in discussion with by conducting themselves in a reasonable and fair manner. The leaders of the Political parties and interest groups seeking to organize the demonstrations should agree with the Police ground rules to ensure that discipline is maintained and ensure that their supporters comply with such ground rules.
The Government should steer clear of the discussions regarding these demonstrations leaving this task to the Police unless of course the Political Party holding office in Government is the party seeking to demonstrate in which case the same conditions should apply with the Police displaying the same attitude and approach as they do with Opposition political parties.
The other category of protestors is more of a challenge to the Police because these spontaneous outbursts do not have an organized character and no leadership which can be negotiated with and held accountable. These demonstrations are more a venting of emotion rather than expression of collective thinking and have to be handled delicately with minimum or no force in order to prevent them snowballing into something destructive.
Such demonstrations by their very nature of lacking an organized leadership with clearly defined objectives are also potentially more dangerous because they can be exploited and hijacked by unscrupulous elements and result in a conclusion which the protestors never intended or envisaged.
This is very clearly brought out by the events of the so called 'Arab Spring' when compared with the Iranian revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution was driven by an ideology and was therefore more orderly and any 'collateral damage' therefore more controllable. In the case of the uprisings in the Middle East there has been no leadership in most situations and the nature of some of the outcomes may not be quite what the initial protestors envisaged or foresaw. Besides it has also given rise to suspicion that there are many fishermen in the pond and many of them not for altruistic reasons.
While the free expression of opinion as well as dissent must be facilitated by the State, it is important that channels and mechanisms to constructively do so must be set up. Government too must pre-empt the need for those who wish to engage in public protests.
Before serious decisions that affect group interests are taken, it is necessary that adequate consultation is made with stakeholders and their views taken on board. The protests, with regard to the decision to make transport of vegetables in plastic crates compulsory, were an instance where this salutary rule was not followed. After several days of protests where unruly demonstrators engaged in reprehensible acts of burning vegetables the problem seems to have been resolved but after expending unnecessary energy which could have been avoided if there was adequate prior consultation.
Even if prior consultations are not possible in view of the reach of the impact of Government decisions like in the case of the recent fuel hike, wiser counsel would have ensured that if the increase in prices was announced as a package together with the subsidies to mitigate the difficulties we would have been spared the spectacle of street protests and the loss of life. Why the Government announced the increase in fuel prices first and made public the subsidies only after the protests is something difficult to fathom.
There is also the need for whoever is in authority ( be it the Minister or Secretary or any other relevant official) to grant an interest group like a Trade Union time to discuss outstanding issues as quickly as possible. However time consuming or unreasonable the demands of any group are it is part of the job description of persons in authority in a functioning democracy to engage with such groups. Failure to do so on the basis of lack of time or on the basis that their demands are an affront to the persons in authority will only have the effect of escalating disputes to the point of unnecessary confrontations.
One also has to strike a note of sympathy for the Police. When faced with avoidable and or disorderly protests they are forced to take action which is not looked on favourably by one section or other of the public. However, what is unacceptable is for the Police to make applications to the judiciary to frustrate the public's right to free and orderly expression on the basis of an anticipated breach of the peace. Apart from such a step violating a Constitutional right it is also tantamount to an admission of inability to carry out their responsibilities.
The right to express dissent must therefore be safeguarded and facilitated. It must however be exercised responsibly and in a non violent manner. For a Government in office it is also a useful barometer of public opinion. From the perspective of the National Interest it will enrich the process of policy formulation and implementation.
(Comments to javidyusuf@yahoo.com) |
E-mail
