Project Syndicate / Naomi Wolf
NEW YORK – What does the New Year hold
for the global wave of protest that erupted in 2011? Did the surge of
anger that began in Tunisia crest in lower Manhattan, or is 2012 likely
to see an escalation of the politics of dissent?
The answers are alarming but quite predictable: we are likely to see
much greater centralization of top-down suppression – and a rash of laws
around the developed and developing world that restrict human rights.
But we are also likely to see significant grassroots reaction.
What we are witnessing in the drama of increasingly globalized
protest and repression is the subplot that many cheerleaders for
neoliberal globalization never addressed: the power of globalized
capital to wreak havoc with the authority of democratically elected
governments. From the perspective of global corporate interests, closed
societies like China are more business-friendly than troublesome
democracies, where trade unions, high standards of human-rights
protection, and a vigorous press increase costs.
All over the world, the pushback against protest looks similar,
suggesting that state and corporate actors are learning “best practices”
for repressing dissent while maintaining democratic facades. In the
United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron routinely impugns
human-rights laws; the Metropolitan Police have sought authority to use
baton rounds – foot-long projectiles that have caused roughly a dozen
deaths, including that of children, in Northern Ireland – on peaceful
protesters; and a police report on the threat of terrorism, distributed
to “trusted partners” among London businesses, included updates about Occupy protests and referred to “suspected activists.”
The UK has stringent internal-security legislation, but it never had a
law like the United States Patriot Act. After anti-austerity protests
in early 2011, followed by riots in major cities in August, the
Metropolitan Police claimed powers to monitor private social-media
accounts and smartphones. And, under the guise of protecting this
summer’s Olympics against terrorism, the British military is
establishing a massive base in London from which SAS (special forces)
teams will operate – a radical departure from Britain’s traditional
civil policing.
In Israel, Ha’aretz reports that Occupy-type protests have
been met with police violence, including a beating of a 15-year-old
girl, and threats of random arrest. Israel, like Britain, has seen a
push, seemingly out of nowhere, to enact new laws crippling
newsgathering and criminalizing dissent: a new law makes it potentially a
crime to donate to left-wing organizations, human-rights laws have been
weakened, and even investigative reporting has become more dangerous,
owing to stricter libel penalties. Ha’aretz calls the push “the new feudalism.”
Finally, in America, the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted
by Congress in December, allows the president to suspend due process for
US citizens, detain them indefinitely, and render them for torture. One
should not be surprised to see similar legislation adopted in
democracies worldwide.
Not only are laws criminalizing previously legal dissent, organizing,
and reporting being replicated in advanced democracies; so are violent
tactics against protesters, backed by the increasing push in countries
with long traditions of civil policing to militarize law enforcement.
Indeed, increasingly sophisticated weapons systems and protective
equipment are being disseminated to civilian police officers. In the US,
the federal government has spent an estimated $34 billion since the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to arm state and local police
forces with battlefield-grade hardware. Investigative reporting has also
revealed cross-pollination of anti-protest training: local police from
cities like Austin, Texas, have been sent to Israel for training in
crowd control and other tactics.
The globalization of mercenaries to crack down on dissent is also
proceeding apace. Mercenaries are important in a time of global
grassroots protest, because it is easier to turn a foreigner’s guns or
batons against strangers than it is to turn the military or police
against fellow citizens. Erik Prince, the head of the most infamous
outfit, Academi (formerly Xe Services, formerly Blackwater), has
relocated to the UAE, while Pakistani mercenaries have been recruited in
large numbers to Bahrain, where protesters have been met with
increasingly violent repression.
But this apparently coordinated pushback against global protest
movements is not yet triumphant – not even in China, as the people of
Wukan have shown. While the outcome of the villagers’ protest against
the local government’s confiscation of their land remains uncertain, the
standoff reveals new power at the grassroots level: social media allows
sharper, coordinated gatherings and the rapid dissemination of news
unfiltered by official media. The Internet is also disseminating
templates of what real democracy looks like – instantly and worldwide.
Not surprisingly, people use this technology in ways that indicate
that they have little interest in being cordoned off into conflicting
and competing ethnicities, nationalities, or religious identities.
Overwhelmingly, they want simple democracy and economic
self-determination.
That agenda is in direct conflict with the interests of global
capital and governments that have grown accustomed to operating without
citizen oversight. It is a conflict that can be expected to heighten
dramatically in 2012, as protesters’ agendas – from Occupy Wall Street
to Occupy Moscow – gain further coherence.
Much is at stake. Depending on the outcome, the world will come to
look either more like China – open for business, but closed for dissent –
or more like Denmark.
Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries.