Demonstrations.

 Demonstrations have a long and honourable history in Britain - but unfortunately not a recent one.  After yesterday, I went up into the loft & fetched one of my most treasured possessions-the South African Independent Electoral Commission's handbook on protest management. 

I thought it might help me dispel my increasing sense of deja-vu, and maybe help me resolve some of the questions swirling around in my head ...

This guide was written against a backdrop of at least 30 years of inter-racial violence, with many casualties on both sides.  The South African Police were routinely armed, had powers that would give Norman Tebbit palpitations, and had no history of negotiation.  Why would they need to bargain?  They were the state.  They could kill at will, and there were literally no consequences.

The protestors, on the other hand were often young, scared, and although not 'armed' no strangers to violence themselves. The most repugnant form of violence?  The 'necklace'.  A tyre put round the neck, then set alight.  Barbaric. Murderous.  Iconic.  And the first line of counter-attack, when people sought to criticise the police's conduct-'But look what they're up against'.


 The divisions between the police & any democratic protestors were therefore entrenched and extremely bitter.  The police were seen as murderers-and some undoubtedly were.  The protestors were seen as violent scum, with no respect for lives or property-and some were.

The IEC was given the task of acting as 'honest broker' in setting guidelines, managing demos and addressing complaints.  It was obvious a new model was needed, based on dialogue not confrontation.  So, here's what they did:

Their starting point was: Everyone is a human being.  Simple.  All talk of 'fascist pigs'/ 'kaffirs' was forbidden.  It is impossible to manage (as opposed to oppress) a large group of people if their humanity has been forgotten.  Another starting assumption was that most people do not like committing violence.  Including policemen.

The second point (and this imo is extremely relevent to protests here) was leadership & accountability.  Every demo was to have named, identifiable leaders, responsible for good conduct, & who were the police's first point of contact.

Before every demo, preferably a couple of days before, police and leadership sat down, and talked.  I was at some of these meetings, & the look on hardened coppers' faces at being addressed as Hendrik by 20-something ANC activists who until recently would have been locked up forever, was priceless.  As was the look on the activists' faces when Hendrik brought biscuits.  There were regular contact times established-so that communication became routine, not a matter of panic.  That wasy, it's a lot easier to ask for help when it's really needed.

Forward planning.  I was appalled when I saw the metal barriers being put in place this week. Want/think you need, a weapon?  Here's one the police have thoughtfully provided...Madness.  If something (and more about the importance of things later) needs protecting, then do it with people.  Sort out multiple routes ahead of the protest-so if anyone goes off-piste the police can keep up.

Armed police were to be used as back-up only.  That in turn meant, there was no plausible excuse for 'peaceful' demonstrators turning up with metal pipes etc.  Stewards (you need a lot of these and they need proper training) were given confiscatory powers.  Water cannons etc were on hand-but the leadership of the demos were to be warned before they were deployed, to give them the opportunity to sort things out.  This had two beneficial consequences-firstly, it stopped any knee-jerk reactions by the police and secondly, it enabled the leadership to show their 'constituents' that it was in their interest to tow the line.

Kettling.  What an inept method of policing. If people are rioting, then arrest them.  If you want to disperse a large group of people, you need multiple points of dispersal-not just one.  That way they won't panic, pick stuff up & chuck it at the police.  Thereby creating a riot where previously there wasn't one.  As happened this week...

So, what about when it all goes horribly wrong?  What did the IEC do then?  Primarily, the task of the leadership then becomes one of damage control.  Children and other vulnerable groups were to be got out, pronto.  If that means a fifteen yr-old who's chucked a brick gets to go home, fine.  He can always be picked up later.  Damage to property is less significant than damage to people.  So if a crowd disperses across a park, let them go.  Flowers can be re-planted.  As Treasury doors can be fixed.

Afterwards? Firstly, de-brief stewards and police.  Yes, that does mean that the police are questioned by civilians.  Tough.  Accountability cuts both ways.  If a steward is found to have breached guidelines (which will include breaking the law, obviously), then they're handed over.  No arguments. 

Learn.  And keep talking.  Always keep talking.

But but but, I hear you splutter.  What if there's a riot?  what if a steward lies, or a policeman?  Are we really supposed to let brick-chucking fifteen year-olds go home to Mummy.  Should we trust the police?  anarchists?  Why would any reasonable person want to go on a demo after this week anyway?  Should we trust police officers/students/hangers-on?

Yes.  We don't, but we should do all those things.  After all, we are all human, remember?