Friday Sep 20, 2024
Friday Sep 20, 2024
Tuesday, 20 December 2016 00:02 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Ganidhu Weerasinha
Social movements have shaped and are shaping modern societies around the globe. From the American Civil Rights Movement to the Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, social movements have benefited and transformed the economic, political and social conditions of many people. But this is not always the case. This article will discuss in brief the political and historical background of social movements and the factors leading to civil unrest using data collected by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to further explore this issue.
The risk of civilian unrest is on the rise in many parts of the world. According to polling data presented in the ILO’s World of Work Report, it is estimated that “the risk of unrest has risen the most in advanced economies over the past five years, followed by the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia.”
Countries with large populations of young, educated people with limited employment prospects tend to experience unrest in the form of protests
The people on the streets in protest from Washington to Seoul demonstrate the reality of ILO’s research findings on advanced economies. The ability to express our discontent in government policy is a fundamental attribute of a democracy. However, it is clear that protests and strikes that continue for a long period will obstruct the efficiency of government mechanisms and subsequently affect the economy negatively.
Prior to moving to the issues closer to home, one may first recognise the factors that contribute to an increased risk of civil unrest. The ILO puts forward six factors.
The first factor is income inequality and the perception of injustice. The perception of economic and social disparity and increasing social exclusion is said to have a negative impact on social cohesion and tends to lead to social unrest (Easterly and Levine, 1997).
In early 2016, junior doctors in the United Kingdom staged a series of strikes to renegotiate their contracts. Dissatisfied with the outcome, they took to the streets once more in October resulting in the cancellation of 100,000 operations and over one million appointments. On 2 December 2016, many private bus unions in Sri Lanka resorted to a strike opposing the recent Budget proposal to increase traffic fines leading to a major inconvenience in public transport island-wide.
The second factor is fiscal consolidation and budget cuts. ‘Austerity measures’ have led to politically motivated protests and social instability. This has been the case in Europe for many years, from the end of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s to today’s anti-government demonstrations in Greece (Ponticelli and Voth 2011). However, this has also been a feature in developing countries.
In September 2016, tens of millions of public sector workers went on daylong strike across India, protesting against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s economic policies, particularly his plans to push for greater privatisation. This led to the temporary closing of thousands of State-run banks, government offices and factories and greatly disrupted public transport.
The third factor is higher food prices. In addition to collective frustrations regarding the democratic process, rising food prices were also central to the developments associated with the Arab Spring (Bellemare, 2011). More than 5,000 people staged protests across Jordan in “a day of rage” to protest against escalating food prices and unemployment.
The fourth factor is the heavy-handedness of the State. In countries where the State has resorted to excessive use of force (police and military) to tackle social upheavals instead of focusing on the actual causes of unrest, such actions have often exacerbated the situation (Justino, 2007). In February 2016, a Government crackdown on illegal street food vendors turned violent in Hong Kong as riot police clashed with protesters in the shopping district of Mong Kok following Government officials’ attempts to evict street vendors selling from unlicensed stalls.
The fifth factor is the presence of an educated but dissatisfied populace. Countries with large populations of young, educated people with limited employment prospects tend to experience unrest in the form of protests (Jenkins, 1983; Jenkins and Wallace, 1996). This has been the case recently in many parts of the world, from southern European countries such as Greece and Spain to South Asian countries.
For instance, in late August 2016 the Inter University Students’ Federation in Sri Lanka staged a large-scale protest march against a private medical university. Their attempt to enter a high security zone was halted by police intervention.
The final factor is the prevalence of mass media. Past studies have highlighted the impact of radio on the organisation of demonstrations and clearly the use of the Internet (e.g. through the use of Facebook and Twitter) have played a role in recent incidents of unrest.
In September 2011, 3,000 people assembled at Battery Park with the intention of occupying Wall Street to protest greed and corruption in the Government and financial system. They didn’t succeed geographically but with the use of social media the movement was able to gain momentum and spread to cities across the US and around the world.
The right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest are crucial in a functioning democracy. The proliferation of information and ideas help inform political debate and are essential to public accountability and transparency in Government. It is important to note that there are cases where public demonstrations are clearly justified. However, the efficient functioning of Government institutions and mechanisms is paramount. Strikes, protest and other public demonstrations should be the last option for citizens to express their discontent. It is imperative to establish forums for discussion and dialogue for citizens to voice their concerns and for elected representatives to consult the public.
We can reflect on the words of the late US President Theodore Roosevelt: “Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”
