Whereas violence carries with it a deep and undeniable logic, I thought I would write about the flip side of this logic. Indeed, the paradopx of violent protest is that whislt disruptive demonstrations, including fiery roadblocks, rigid barricades and burning tyres, are triggered by genuine grievances and injustice and whereas the government’s seemingly ritualized inaction humiliates and angers citizens, the requirement of the poor to survive poverty is not a sufficient explanation for the extremity and destructiveness dominant in the protestation models currently in force in Jamaica. This brand of demand-making rebellion is problematic because (1) genuine citizen mobilizations, when executed in antagonistic ways, run the risk of being hijacked by persons with contradictory or outright criminal intentions, (2) legitimate forces of activism (community groups, student groups; youth movements) will potentially co-opt these so-called ‘weapons of the weak’ and thereby perpetuate the normalization of destructive mobilization and political negotiation tactics rather than advance strategies that can build a truly participatory and functioning civil society, and (3) the deployment of combative protestation styles gives the impression of instability and a departure from the rule of law and hence invites repression by the state in the name of order.

These developments not only serve to alienate possible supporters but instead perpetuate the further marginalization of the marginal sector and undermine the cause and goals for which they protest. An impression is also being formed in the political culture that protest cannot take the form of civil discourse and organized civil action. This is not to say that civility does not allow room for overt acts of resistance or criticism of unjust laws and practices. Indeed, roadblock politics, in certain circumstances for example, to protest against bad road conditions, is sometimes a necessary and positive action. However, from the point of view of civility and civil politics properly understood, fiery roadblocks and other forms of violent protest presume superiority to the rule of law as well as disrespect to others who feel differently or actively object to the action. 

Violence is, in reality, a costly startegy for the poor. Let me reiterate F. Piven & R. Cloward’s (1977) perspective on this issue, as outlined in their seminal book, ‘Poor Peoples’ Movements: Why They Succeed and How They Fail’ because it finds basis in the Jamaica context. They argue persuasively that the amount of leverage that protestors gain by applying negative sanctions (violent tactics) is dependent on: (a) whether the contribution withheld is crucial to others, (b) whether or not those affected by the disruption have resources to concede and (c) whether the obstructionist group can protect itself adequately from reprisals or consequences. How does this thesis relate to the Jamaican context? First, unlike factory workers or students, marginal sectors such as the unemployed usually operate in non-institutional settings and thereby do not have contributions such as labour to withdraw. In other words, the poor in Jamaica, as elsewhere, cannot strike so their only recourse is usually to riot or block roads in order to create maximum disruption of others. Second, the economic constraints facing the Jamaican state largely determines its capacity to concede resources. Thirdly, in some instances, unless a protest has managed to galvanize the support of powerful groups (politicians, business sector, media etc.), it is very easy for the state to repress or ignore these campaigns and the demands of protestors.

In light of these criteria, it becomes evident that it is the poor who are usually in the least strategic position to benefit from this kind of defiance. Blocking roads, barricading schools, burning and looting, as well as exchanging gunfire with the police are no doubt powerful forms of direct citizen action. However, they impact not just the source of citizens’ discontent (the government) but everyone. Schools are shut, transportation is halted, productivity is diminished and food supply is disrupted. The political reverberations are enormous. This may of course force the state to act but the disadvantage appears to fall more to the protestor and less so to the state and other powerful interests.

I am not here objecting to protests and the need for citizens with genuine concerns to mount protests, or calling for a halt to the democratic exercise of civil protest. Indeed, civil protest has proved itself time and again in Jamaica as a viable and effective weapon to solicit attention and generate more encompassing remedies to local problems than conventional means.

We must however decide whether it is justifiable for citizen-protestors to assume a stance of bullying (as opposed to lobbying) in order to achieve results. Violence cannot eclipse or be seen as a legitimate and more useful option of generating state response than modalities of peaceful (but effective, targeted) protest and civil negotiation. This is because, however fashionable, the wanton employment of radicalized and/or extremist forms of popular citizen action is evidence of the increasing rupturing of a civil way of life and the retreat of civil politics in Jamaica.