Arresting Disobedience
by Jessica Azulay
ZNet Sustainer Program
January 23, 2003
Hundreds of thousands of people marched in Washington, DC and San Francisco
last weekend, yet it looks like the U.S. is probably going to war anyway.
The large, peaceful protests illustrated the size of our antiwar movement
and certainly sent a powerful message to America that this war will not go
unchallenged. But as coverage of the demonstrations dies down, it becomes
increasingly obvious that hundreds of thousands taking to the streets,
chanting, drumming, and propagandizing will not be enough to halt the war
machine. And while outrage that Bush and company seem to be ignoring the
will of the dissenting American majority is justified, we should not be
surprised by elite�s decisions to ignore our protest.
As we consider more confrontational forms of protest, we need to keep our
main goal of raising social costs always in mind. If we are to send a
strong message to those in power, we must make it clear to them that waging
war will cause more and more people to engage in activities that challenge
their authority. In a society built on the obedient participation of its
members, nothing is scarier than the threat of massive insubordination and
noncompliance. Elites do not listen to moral reasoning or argument, but
defiance is a language they will respond to because it threatens the very
basis of their power, something they hold dear.
There are many ways that activists can escalate their antiwar commitment,
such as direct action, strikes, boycotts, etc. So far, however, the most
popular method seems to be civil disobedience. The term �civil
disobedience� aptly describes a form of protest aimed at nonviolently
defying the laws and status quo imposed on our society by the institutions
that make war. It is activists� willingness to disobey, even at great risks
to their health and freedom, that challenges those laws and institutions.
Since civil disobedience brings activists in direct confrontation with the
law, it is often associated with mass arrests. It is important, however,
that participants in civil disobedience tactics maintain a commitment to
the defiance that scares elites so much.
Though arrests and jail time will sometimes be the inevitable consequences
of disobedience, it is critical that arrest never becomes the main
objective. Surrendering yourself to the U.S. justice system can be an
extremely disempowering and horrible experience. Many of us try to avoid it
if possible and for good reason. Why should we enter into actions with the
intention of giving up our rights? We needn�t assume or accept that the
result of expressing our dissent will be arrest or incarceration. We must
be prepared for it, but we should not willingly consent to or seek it.
In the last several months, some groups have done a great job of defining
their targets of civil disobedience and confronting those targets with
incredible determination and rebelliousness. They have used language,
propaganda, and symbols that are easy to understand. All of this is
important because in order for defiance to spread it must be empowering and
accessible. When activists use their bodies and voices to try to shut down
or impede the function of institutions that facilitate war, they have the
potential to draw negative public attention to those institutions. When
protestors� expression of disobedience and non-compliance help them achieve
their antiwar goals and allow them to forcefully express their dissent, it
can inspire and uplift them and other activists.
On the other hand, I have witnessed several scenarios in which activists
orchestrated and/or facilitated their own arrests. They walked into action
with the intention of getting arrested, though most did not actually engage
in activity confrontational enough to immediately provoke such an outcome.
Some examples of this are: activists standing in front of buildings without
actually blocking entrances, activists blockading entrances that were not
actually being used, activists sitting down in intersections that were not
open to traffic. In many of these situations, the determination to get
arrested was so strong that it became the focus of the activity. In one
case, for instance, when police asked what the activists� demands were they
said, �Arrest us.� In many situations, trying to negotiate against arrest
was not considered. No one questioned whether or not there was actual legal
basis for the arrests and no one demanded that the police respect the first
amendment rights of the activists.
As a witness, I came away feeling extremely disempowered, alienated, and
even angry. In situations where the goal or intended message of an action
is arrest, the idea of disobedience gets subverted. There is not much
defiant or threatening about activists who freely submit themselves to the
mercy of the system. For these demonstrations, it seemed as if a vital step
had been left out�the part of the protest where the target is defined and
action was taken against that target. Instead, it was as if protesters just
decided to skip the disobedience part and precede directly to the
consequences. Go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect your
rights or a sense of accomplishment.
The Iraq Pledge of Resistance is a nationwide effort that has the potential
to mobilize a significant number of people for civil disobedience if the
United States government decides to go to war with Iraq. Antiwar activists
are asked to commit to participating in civil disobedience in the event of
a war, and they are asked to sign a statement that affirms the values of
nonviolence. The document is eloquent, yet it contains a clause that some
antiwar activists find extremely problematic: �We will not run or resist
arrest; we will remain accountable for our actions as a means of furthering
our witness to the injustice of this war.� This might sound righteous on
paper, but in many ways it contradicts the very idea of defiance.
Is it true resistance to break the law and then freely accept whatever
consequences the state deems appropriate? Do we not believe that we have
the right to participate in activities that will impede war, especially
when our representatives have chosen not to respond to us when we go
through the channels provided by the government? And should we not in every
way possible try to limit the state�s ability to punish us for what they
consider disobedience but what we see as our right to oppose war?
This is not necessarily an argument against getting arrested, since there
are many ways in which arrest can actually work in activists� favors. Many
activists rightly understand that getting arrested attracts media
attention, which is why it is often a favored tactic. There is no doubt
that when activists are willing to risk arrest in order to take part in
defiant activity it makes a powerful statement about their commitment to
stop war. Raising the stakes of war often means readiness to make personal
sacrifices and that kind of courage is impressive and speaks loudly to
other activists and the public. But arrest is not a substitute for a
well-planned action intended to make a strong antiwar statement, though
many such actions will received increased coverage if its participants are
arrested.
To the extent possible activists should try to circumvent the justice
system. One popular method for this is jail solidarity, a tactic in which
activists refuse to cooperate with or identify themselves to authorities
once they are arrested. If enough people clog the jail and the court
system, sometimes they are eventually freed without criminal charges or
fines. In order for this tactic to work, there must be strong solidarity
among arrested activists and a shared desire and commitment to flouting the
system. Jail solidarity is not always successful, but when it is, it can be
extremely empowering and can work in limiting the huge expenses that often
accrue when activists get arrested�money that gets used by the justice
system and strengthens their ability to trample everyone�s rights.
Participating in jail solidarity and other tactics that limit the justice
system�s ability to make activists pay for their defiance will also
embolden more to get involved because it decreases the actual risks and
costs to activists.
Also important is for privileged white activists to realize that arrest or
risk of arrest means different things to different sectors of our society.
In general the perceived consequences of participation in disobedient
activities that could end in arrest are greater for groups traditionally
targeted and abused by the justice system. There needs to be constant
awareness of this reality and a commitment from more privileged folks to
participate in explicit solidarity with people who are particularly
vulnerable. It is also essential that the glorification and romanticization
of arrest be toned down. This type of expression is extremely alienating to
people whose experience with the justice system is the exact opposite.
Along with this comes preventing hierarchies within our own organizing
groups from forming around people who get arrested. There needs to be
constant recognition that the costs and risks of arrest are not the same
for everyone and that gaining status and power based on the privilege of
being able to afford arrest will severely restrict any democratic
aspirations of our movement.
This is a critical time for the antiwar movement. An attack on Iraq seems
to be fast approaching, and we are in a race with war-makers to organize
effectively to prevent such an attack. We need to be able to show elites
that the number of people willing to engage in more cost-exacting tactics
is growing and will continue to grow exponentially if they continue on
their present course towards war. This means we have to design tactics that
not only make our dissent blatant, but that also appeal to other antiwar
sympathizers to get involved in big demonstrations and civil disobedience
so that our movement can expand. The best way to do this is to choose
activities that are bold, creative, defiant and empowering. If we can
manifest those characteristics in our activism without forsaking actual
goals or alienating newcomers and onlookers, we have great potential to
make change.
Link: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=2908
