The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
This is from his speech at his second rally which is basses of his "civil peaceful resistance."
To carry out starting this week the first actions of civil peaceful resistance. For that purpose a citizen committee will be formed to decide what type of actions and in what circumstances they will be carried out in practice.
Meanwhile, Lopez Obrador has given his adoring supporters ambiguous directions. He prompted two protest rallies in Mexico City, one reportedly the largest demonstration in the country's history. These were peaceful ways for Lopez Obrador's followers to vent their frustration. But Lopez Obrador has not spoken out forcefully enough against violence. On July 18, some of his supporters kicked and jeered at Calderon's car, and a left-wing Mexico newspaper warned that both Lopez Obrador and his followers were behaving recklessly. When his supporters chant, "Without a solution, there will be revolution," Lopez Obrador fails to stress that violence can't play any role in it.
But Lopez Obrador has not spoken out forcefully enough against violence. On July 18, some of his supporters kicked and jeered at Calderon's car, and a left-wing Mexico newspaper warned that both Lopez Obrador and his followers were behaving recklessly. When his supporters chant, "Without a solution, there will be revolution," Lopez Obrador fails to stress that violence can't play any role in it.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
I was so frustrated and exasperated when massive rallies had literally no effect at all on influencing public opinion, much less changing the U.S. government's decision to invade Iraq (mainly due to adverse and/or non-existent media coverage.)
On the other hand, would I have been in favor of more demonstrations, for a paralysis of the country through civil disobedience?
I have yet to think it through, but as with Florida fiasco in the 2000 U.S. presidential elections, as with the alleged vote-rigging in Ohio during the 2004 U.S. presidential election, I think the reason that I decided to "let it be", despite my intense outrage, was that I recognized that even if some wrongdoing had occurred -- deception of the people by the government with respect ot Iraq, vote-tampering with respect to the presidential elections -- the basic balance of opinion in the country was nevertheless too close, and not in favor of my own position by enough of a margin to disturb the entire country just to promote my own political stance.
Having said that, what percentage of the U.S. south was in favor of civil rights, and what percentage of India was in favor of independence from Britain, when King and Gandhi incited massive action through civil disobedience in those two countries? Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
It is exactly when the balance of opinion is too close that protest is necessary. If the balance is clearly one way or another there is no need for the majority to demonstrate nor a chance for the minority to change the balance. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Except in the all too common case where a minority has disproportionate power with which it can impose its will against a majority. In that situation, civil disobedience is clearly in order.
As for the "too close to call" case, I need to think about it more. What percentage of the French population was against the CPE law when it first was passed? I guess in that case, it was not so much how many people were for or against it, but how many people were even aware of it, or cared about it. I guess that is another constructive function of protests, and perhaps, yes, civil disobedience: raising awareness and educating the third parties about the issue. Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
In India, independence was much more popular.
One thing to remember is that the British Government was pro-independence too, and the US federal government was very much pro-civil rights starting with the Truman administration.
In order for popular revolution to prevail in most countries, you have to have the partial support of the "enemy." If the federal government was against integration it wouldn't have happened.
The massive rallies in Rome, Madrid and London do count. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 81 comment
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 319 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 195 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29