WASHINGTON'Downtown Washington, D.C., was filled last weekend with thousands of police in riot gear. Helicopters circled overhead. Sirens wailed through the streets and squad cars, vans and even Metro buses waited to take away anyone arrested. Police from across the United States lined the streets around the World Bank and International Monetary Fund buildings with billy clubs ready.
It was an intimidating sight.
Opposing this army were a few thousand protesters, far short of the expected 10,000 to 20,000, supporting a variety of causes, ranging from opposition to the IMF and World Bank and war with Iraq to support for the fight against AIDS. They held rallies and paraded through the streets, waving signs, colorful flags and puppets. A few fringe groups sought to tie up traffic and committed small acts of vandalism.
It was less than impressive.
Taken together, the scene was emblematic of what has become an embarrassing and increasingly pointless ritual since the height of anti-globalization protests in 1999 and 2000.
The problem is this: The protests have become so splintered, the protesters diminished in number, and the arguments poorly articulated, that it is unclear what purpose they serve or what they accomplish. Police and other government officials, meanwhile, have overreacted to the point of ridiculous and expensive security measures that further hinder protesters' ability to get their messages across.
And, of course, neither side even makes an attempt to see the other's point of view.
Anti-globalization protests in Seattle in fall 1999 drew thousands and stymied meetings of the World Trade Organization. But they also featured violence, vandalism and confrontations with police. Protesters alleged violation of their rights, and officials vowed to prevent such chaos in the future. Large demonstrations in Washington and Genoa, Italy, further hardened battle lines.
In the meantime, Sept. 11 gave officials new reasons to worry about security, and the anti-globalization movement began to lose steam.
While the fundamental ideas underlying the protests are certainly valid and it is admirable that so many are choosing to act on their beliefs. The activists are kidding themselves if they believe they're being truly effective. It may be better to do something than nothing, but if you go to an empty field and explain at the top of your lungs why the World Bank, IMF or any other institution is bad, what difference does it make? Maybe you'll feel better about yourself, but few will hear you and most will just wonder what you're yelling about and move on.
Nearly every protester I saw interviewed this weekend gave a different explanation of why he or she was here. Admittedly, some of the blame may lie in media coverage, but the activists often seem na??ve when it comes to utilizing mass media to connect with a wide audience. The continuing failure to make consistent, coherent and convincing arguments about which institutions or practices are bad and why'and, especially, what the realistic alternatives are'hurt the movement. Add in the radicals who threaten violence and it's easy for politicians, journalists and the general public to marginalize groups opposed to the power players of the world economy. The story becomes the confrontation, not the underlying argument.
At the same time, leaders have used the violence and chaos of a few events to justify seclusion and overwhelming police presences that reinforce protesters' accusations that decisions are made away from the people. Summits are held in remote locations, and meetings that must take place in cities generate excessive security. (What happened in Madison this summer for the mayors' conference is one example.) Now that the size of protests has waned, officials should re-examine their planning and reduce the intimidating police force at these events, as a gesture toward a freer exchange of ideas.
Most of all, both sides'officials and protesters'need to take a step back and try to see the other's perspective. Leaders should welcome a more open dialogue on global issues such as debt relief, trade and environmental problems. Protesters should shun those who threaten violence and acknowledge that in a time of heightened alert, law enforcement will be sensitive to security needs. Perhaps what has become a three-ring circus could finally be replaced with an honest, open exchange of ideas and solutions.
