Comment on violent protests
I was asked about my opinion on the violent protests in France. I do not cover day-to-day events because the details seldom are necessary for my theoretical insights. What follows is a general view on political violence, governance, and reform.
Political violence as a tool
Violence is a tool. It can be used by the forces seeking political reform. It may also be employed by the establishment. In both cases, what matters is the application: how the tool is used and in pursuit of which ends. To dismiss it as such is to pretend that it can never be useful.
When the 18th century French revolutionaries were beheading members of the Ancien Régime, for example, they were effectively issuing a corrective against profligacy. They were delivering justice. That this was carried out by gruesome means is important insofar as it made the message unambiguous.
The same tool of political violence can, of course, be used to uphold an otherwise abusive status quo. Violence thus performs a function of unleashing certain forces while containing others. What the goal is, is notionally distinct and can be reasoned about as such.
Violent protests will amount to something more than sheer destruction if they are supported by programmatic action. If there is a concrete follow-up programme that can be implemented to usher in some kind of thoroughgoing change, then violence shall contribute constructively to the refashioning of the state.
If, however, such programmatic action is absent or present yet tokenistic, then violent protests will eventually degenerate into collective mindlessness; into anger that fuels unrest and facilitates looting with no higher end in sight.
Popular does not always mean good
Protests always have concrete demands, at least initially. They are mindful in this regard. Though demands themselves do not yield a specific programme. It is not enough to know what one wants. One must also have a clear idea of how to get it and, above all, be prepared to make sacrifices in their own life where necessary. Otherwise, it is wishful thinking at best and reckless governance at worst.
This may not matter to the teenagers who protest, for example, though it still is significant for politics at-large. The state, or anyhow the agent of collective action, must be in a position to realise the given reforms, which themselves need to be defined in clear terms.
There can be no progress without a well-designed agenda that connects desires to results.
That granted, governments do not always do what their people want. One reason is corruption. Another is legitimate longer-term planning. For example, people may ask for cheap credit to finance their everyday spending. Doing so is not free of longer-term consequences, even if it costs virtually nothing for the central bank to print oodles of money. A responsible leader has to factor in the implications and decide for the general good not just in present time, but also for the future.
One area where this is desirable is ecology. A typical policy along those lines involves some present day inconvenience, however minor, in exchange for greater longer-term benefits for people and the other species of this planet. There are cases where there are no inconveniences to be had, though the principle is that certain policies can be rationally understood as broadly beneficial for the long-term even if they are unpopular at the outset.
Put differently, the popularity of any given idea does not, ipso facto, make it benign.
Shrewd and unscrupulous governments will try to put a positive spin on their stratagems, such that those qualify as elements of responsible statecraft. Though this does not change the fact that a policy can be popular and still harmful.
Understanding the contradictions
Politics is complex because it is replete with trade-offs and bundles of mutually exclusive choices. One has to factor in the prerequisites as well as the foreseeable consequences.
Which brings me to common contradictions that we see everyday. For example, people in Europe will complain about how expensive life is right now. But they will also be against Russia, which supplied them with cheap energy. And they will not be willing to make deals with Iran, which can also give them cheap energy. And they do not like the Chinese, so they make Chinese exports extra expensive. And so on.
Politicians want to be popular. Same with influencers and other prominent figures. So nobody ever says the unpleasant truth out loud, which leaves the philosopher in the awkward position of being the cynic: there are inescapable trade-offs in life and you cannot have it all. If you want the opulent life in which you live beyond your means care-free, you have to accept alliances with people you do not like and/or you have to support your own country’s imperialistic propensities. Those riches you dream of will not just come out of positive vibes.
It is very easy to condemn imperialism. It is much more difficult to lead a lifestyle that, once generalised, renders imperialism surplus to requirements.
Withholding judgement
I choose to let events unfold and judge the results. People have demands I agree with. I think governments in Europe have grown complacent and are increasingly unaccountable. It is time to make them realise that things cannot continue this way.
Though I will not celebrate before the match is over. The protesters must prove that they know what they want and are able to enact it as the new order. They have to couch their ambitions in terms of a wider programme that can deliver sustainable results. Perhaps they can do so, though what I have seen thus far makes me cautious.