Protesting without change; experiencing the difference between European and Arab protests

by Zoran Pantoulas

Public protests are not something new for Europe. The image of seas of people walking slowly towards the institutional monuments of political power is well known. They are primarily symbols of memory. Lost memory. No matter how much institutional power does an elected political body exert on the People, they must always remember where their power comes from. They must remember how small they are in front of the People. But beyond symbols and images, there is something more important in the heart of a protest. This is the feeling of injustice that conveys the need for change. A feeling that grasps every single person from their core and makes them a unit; a whole, with one direction and one message. We doubt you! You must change. Of course not all protests are like this. For years they have been manipulated to convey other messages, by imitating the spirit of injustice; strategy, political pressure of centers of influence and other reasons resided in them. This year we see a different kind of protests, though. These protests have little pressure from political parties and they seem to be organized on nothing else than the feeling of injustice. They seem like actions of true doubt of the political systems. Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and other Arab nations struck hard with their protests. They somehow showed the true way to protest, long forgotten by Europeans. Spain and Greece have followed this way of protesting. The true protests! True in their spirit, but somehow different in their results. Arab protests attempted to force changes in their regimes; some unsuccessfully. Those who did, changed the status of their political system. Reforms of their constitutions were immediately implemented. On the other hand, European protests are somewhat different. Despite their spirit, they seem to lack the possibility of change. They act, but make no change. I have always wondered why? Unfortunately, I haven't been to these protests, but my experience from a protest may guide you to an answer. The feeling of injustice is there, but nobody seems to have a clue how to transform it into change.

6th of May 2010. That day Greece signed a huge loan contract with some of its EU partners , the ECB and the IMF, with a simple majority vote. Protests were organized almost every week that month, yet this protest was completely different. The most important indication was that there were a lot of people who usually snob protests. People who value the safety of their homes more than showing themselves to the streets. You see, in every protest, there are several groups of people; some under the auspicies of political parties, others in non-governmental groups, and others that are usually members of work affiliated unions. These people are always there. They have some signs on them; a flag, a pin, a newspaper or they gather under the group's flag. They belong somewhere and they go there not just by feeling, but also by the necessity to support their group's strength; that is the volume of people under the flag. But you can also find people, like me for example, who have no signs and just walk through these groups. They are always few. Sometimes with friends; but few. This day, most of the people were without signs. I don't know

why they were there, but I can only imagine that they were in the streets just by a sense of duty to their polity. I thought that this sense was derived primarily from their feeling of injustice. I've come to doubt it. A protest is like a river. The route of the protest is pre-determined. The people will walk a specific distance from one point (not unanimously accepted) and stop by in front of an institution. The whole year this had been the parliament. They shout some slogans, until the next group arrives. That day almost 100.000 people did a 3km distance from the General Worker's Union to Constitution Square, where the parliament is situated. What I usually do is to start from the Worker's Union and pass by each group so I can see all their slogans. So, I followed and watched all the groups and read all their slogans before moving quickly to the square in front of the parliament. But there I stopped and waited. I don't know why, but most of the people who were without flags or signs, were there also. Waiting in the square for something to happen. It isn't wrong to say that squares write history. On the 3rd of September of1843 in the same square where I stood, the Greek people along with the military protested against the monarch Otto Friedrich Ludwig von Wittelsbach. The numbers of people that gathered were immense and even the monarch's adherents defected to follow them. Under one slogan; Hail to the Constitution they demanded him to leave and give the People a constitution. They got it! The political power of the monarch diminished and the small state changed its political system from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. The square was named Constitution Square making it a symbol of obedience to the people's will. It showed why it is important to be there and show who has the real power within a polity. The similarity of this protest with the Arab ones is phenomenal. In both cases there was one primary reason why people, in masses, gathered in the streets. The need for freedom of selfgovernment. A need for a People's government. In spirit there is nothing wrong protesting for this right. Either in Athens of 1843 or 2010 Cairo the People hoped to exclaim their will. A hope that transformed into change of the regime. The years of injustice they suffered, where transformed into acts of doubt; protests. These held within them the hope for change, which eventually was reified. Their sense of citizenship became real. Unfortunately, modern European Democracies seem to lack this hope. People don't hope, but seem to expect change to happen, simply because they are in the streets. This way protests become fudged with opinions. They are incoherent and the only communal sense that distinguishes itself is the sense indignity. Liberal states hold their power by inflicting people's dignity, so that they can justify their violence. Dignity is a concept that has been stretched by liberalism and therefore action to change has been paralyzed. Indignity is not enough for Europeans to transform their protests into institutional change. Here is how I saw it happen. That day, the 6th of May, I found myself in the Constitution Square, but now things were substantially different. Instead of one slogan, there were several; confusing and a bit dogmatic. All the corrupt politician's in jail. All the cheats in jail. Out with the IMF Down with US imperialism and others a bit out of the blue like: Communism is the only answer. But more than slogans, the spirit was different. The people had no clue what exactly they wanted. It was a mess.

Yet, many people without flags or signs stayed in the square. Why? A reasonable answer could be a feeling of injustice. You see, it is a big debate between constitution scholars, whether the signing of this loan, only with a simple majority, should be considered unconstitutional. So, 163 years after the defiance of monarchy and the conquest of a constitution, the present democratic government seems to defy this vested right. Maybe that was the feeling of injustice that took over these people, but I wasn't sure. I wanted to know more, but how? So, I stayed in the square with almost 20.000 people. Everybody was standing around the parliament, looking face to face with the police and the facade of the building. Everyone was waiting and alert. Everybody was expecting something to happen. Suddenly an unidentified group of people flocked and went for the stairs that lead into parliament. The police immediately responded, hearing as instantly only the contempt of the crowd. They blocked the entrance and the unidentified group retreated. This became a routine. The crowd was watching those people trying to enter the parliament but did nothing to support them. The police could easily respond to the attempts of the few who tried to break their chain. At that moment I felt I wasn't sure why I was there. I was only observing, sometimes shouting along with the crowd but nothing more. I looked around me and I saw the images of confused faces; of people without a compass, who where stranded in a position of uncertainty. It seemed that a cloud of truth was hanging above us.

If we were sure, we would act. We would help those trying to break the chains of justified violence and stop the injustice happening in the building.
In one moment a fed up protester shouted at the crowd. Why aren't you doing something? Why aren't you helping us enter? Nobody responded. I kept my answer in the tip of my tongue: And what would we do, anyway?... That was the Truth. We didn't know what we wanted! We went there because we felt that something unjust was happening in our polity, but we couldn't describe what we needed. We didn't need a constitution. We didn't need freedom or more rights. In a sense we wanted the system to work for the benefit of the people, but this is undoubted, since we have a representative democracy. It was as if we were floating over the square, observing; being neutral. What was the point of that? If I care about my identity as a citizen of a democratic polity, I should be able to hold a well-reasoned opinion about the practices of a democratically elected government. I should be able to act publicly and, along with my fellow citizens, reify the undoubted meaning of citizenship. Exactly as the people of the Arab nations did. So what does this mean for Europeans? I think retrospectively, that that day we were doubting ourselves. We were doubting our sense of dignity and that was not a way to make a change. It is this kind of doubt that has covered Europe. Ultimately, change has lost its meaning for European democracies.