Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Protests

Protests

Insurrection and Chaos in the United States: Capitol Crimes at the Centre of Government

by

by Owen Saunders

Swarms of Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol. Source: Reuters

If there was anyone left following 2020 that still held to T.S. Eliot’s words that the ‘world ends/Not with a bang but with a whimper,’ then the events at the U.S. Capitol on 6 January will have cured them of this misconception. In the course of an unprecedented mayhem, the seat of U.S. representative democracy was assaulted by a violent insurrection of Trump supporters intent on preventing the certification of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election in a bizarre attempt to keep Donald Trump in power. The event will undoubtedly consume the opinion pages in the days to come. It is therefore crucial to provide a clear account of the events as they happened and situate them within their context of the wider U.S. democracy.

What happened

The morning of 6 January 2021  began with all eyes focused on the run-off elections for Georgia’s two Senate seats. As no candidate had succeeded in reaching 50% of the vote in the general election of 3 November 2020, these plebiscites offered Democrats the opportunity to carry on the momentum of a victorious Presidential campaign and secure a Senate majority. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff will be Georgia’s first Democratic Senators in seventeen years, having won by razor-thin margins.

On 6 January, Vice President Mike Pence and members of both Houses of the U.S. Congress began the process of formally certifying electoral college votes. Pence did so in spite of immense pressure from President Trump to reject the outcome of the election, with the President explicitly encouraging him to invalidate the results in the Senate. During the count, soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell and the current Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave similar speeches defending democracy. However, Schumer warned how some on the Republican side might ‘darken this view of democracy.’ Republicans more recently, according to The Washington Post, are displaying dangerous authoritarian tendencies, including Senator Ted Cruz of Texas who argued his colleagues should not ‘take the easy path‘ and should reject the election’s outcome.

Historically, the United States has transferred power peacefully, even when the opposing party won the election. This is why in a normal election year these counts rarely attract any attention; indeed, in the course of this year, with the rejectionist rhetoric of Trump, there was little widespread significance attached to these proceedings. This changed following the 3 November election as President Trump made increasingly strident calls for Congress to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes after losing over sixty legal cases attempting to overturn the election results

Just as Congress had begun debating a motion to reject the Electoral College votes from the State of Arizona, President Trump concluded a rally on the National Mall by urging his supporters to pressure Congress to reject the Electoral College results, overtly encouraging insurrection. Thousands flocked from the rally towards the Capitol and, upon arriving, were met with a relatively small force of United States Capitol Police – a significantly smaller force in comparison to the National Guard troops deployed in advance of a June 2020 Black Lives Matter protest at the Lincoln Memorial. The assembled Trump supporters eventually overran the security protections and took possession of the United States Capitol for several hours. As a result, the formal process certifying the vote came to an immediate halt.

Though eventually forced out of the building, thousands of protesters remained outside the Capitol, with the precinct formally under lockdown. The decision to deploy the District of Colombia National Guard, was made by Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy and Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller, and the order was approved by Vice President Mike Pence following multiple requests from the Mayor of Washington and Congressional leaders. Interestingly, Trump as the Commander-in-Chief would have been expected to give this order, however, according to press accounts he failed to do so.

Later that evening, after the 6:00 PM curfew imposed by the DC Mayor that evening, Congress reconvened and voting resumed to certify the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Other major takeaways from this disruptive day, which ended in the deaths of five people, included the significant delays by the President and Department of Defense to authorize the activation of the DC National Guard, the failure by the United States Capitol Police to adequately plan for an obvious threat, and the stark dissimilarities in the way law enforcement handled this event versus the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer after the death of George Floyd.

How did the United States get here?

The United States has always portrayed itself as a global leader and champion of democratic values, especially after World War II and again after the fall of the Soviet Union, where US power and influence became unparalleled. Over the last decade, however, with global power dynamics in shift, rapid advancements in technology, and the 2008 financial crisis, this position began to witness a dramatic transformation. The ‘Tea Party’ movement, a far-right branch of the Republican party, began to manifest during the Obama administration, notably in 2009 as a backlash to the Affordable Care Act, also known as ‘Obamacare’. The 2010 U.S. elections saw 87 Republicans elected to Congress in what was known as the ‘tea party wave’. They were known for anti-regulation and obstructionist domestic policies, an isolationist foreign policy, and a distinct lack of reverence for many democratic institutions and the role of the state in society.

As Donald Trump came onto the political scene as a serious candidate for President in 2015, he took advantage of what remained of the tea party movement, appropriating their populist rhetoric as his own. Throughout his 2016 campaign, he fed his growing base a populist message that appealed to the far-right elements of the Republican party. Trump’s populist approach, direct criticism of his opponents and President Obama, and self-styled image as a ‘fighter’ proved impossible to beat by his primary opponents or in the general election, Hillary Clinton. His victory represented an accumulation of a number of a number of grievances by Middle America, grievances which he continued to perpetuate and exacerbate throughout his presidency.

President Trump throughout his presidency pushed a narrative that the democratic election processes and institutions could not be trusted, that elections are ‘rigged,’ and that the ‘fake news media’ never reported the facts of his administration accurately. He used his impeachment in early 2020 to reinforce his narrative about the ‘fake news media’ and the alledged persecution of his administration. He set the stage for the post-election turmoil by stating in August 2020 that ‘the only way we’re gonna lose this election is if the election is rigged’.

His supporters have adopted his recent, far more deranged, and unhinged views which were disseminated through his constant stream of disinformation via his now-suspended Twitter account. This included spreading far right media misinformation from QAnon, giving OANN, another far right media outlet,  priority to speak during presidential press conferences, and asking for the Proud Boys to ‘stand back and stand by‘ in the course of the campaign. These actions displayed a blatant disregard of the democratic process by the rejection of facts, the promotion of distrust of the media, and the removal of multiple members within his administration who stood up to his disinformation.

After this incident of domestic terrorism where thousands of Trump supporters, some of whom were armed, stormed the Capitol, Congress was forced to adjourn; the national guard was deployed and five people died. The media, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have argued that the 25th amendment should be invoked to have the president removed from office immediately, as his inflammatory rhetoric and disregard for U.S. democracy have made him incapable of fulfilling the duties of his office. The unprecedented incident that unfolded this week is a true test of the more than 200-year-old democracy.

Where does the United States go from here?

The Electoral College vote has been certified but the riots and takeover of the United States Capitol by supporters of the outgoing president will undoubtedly remain as a painful reminder of and stain on his Presidency. The violent incident at the Capitol is but one of the tainted legacies of his administration.

Taking office on 20 January 2021 President-Elect Joe Biden has much to do – and much to undo. His priorities will surely include undoing many Executive Orders from the Trump Administration and working to pass comprehensive legislation for millions of Americans currently experiencing unprecedented losses, restrictions, and economic hardship due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Most importantly, however, the Biden Administration must also work to repair the distrust, hyper-partisanship and extremism which have steadily spread and intensified throughout the United States over the past four years.

Biden will have to rebuild the reputation of the United States on the international stage, further damaged by the events of this week.  Countries and international organizations around the world have reacted in disbelief and disappointment, releasing statements of shock and condemnation regarding the incident. Specifically, the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau released a statement saying Canadians were ‘deeply disturbed by the violence that unfolded’, violence he stated that was incited by the president. Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom emphasised that it is ‘vital that there should be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power’.

The United States, the supposed beacon of democracy, the ‘shining city on a hill’ and self-proclaimed ‘leader’ of the free world, largely failed at upholding their promise and self-avowed values.

Trump’s legacy will be one of immeasurable division, an explicit rejection of democratic values and practices, and the denial of rudimentary facts. Unfortunately, these systemic issues will not simply vanish after his term expires on January 20th. Over the next four years, therefore, Biden must work closely with his cabinet, the Congress, Governors, and citizens across the country to undo the unprecedented division, mistrust, and right wing radicalization that Trump has sown and restore unity and trust in democratic institutions and traditions.

The challenge before President-Elect Biden is daunting. He inherits a highly divided country where one side believes he was democratically elected and the other side believes that he is the beneficiary of a stolen election. Finding a way to bridge that divide and heal the wounds created over the past four years will dictate the trajectory and prosperity of the United States and its place in the world for years to come.

Owen is an MA student in International Peace and Security in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He has taken advanced courses on U.S. Foreign Policy with Professors David Haglund and Joel Sokolsky during his time in Political Studies at Queen’s.

For Latin America, Enough is Enough

by

by Leah Grace

Protesters in Plaza Baquedano, Santiago, Chile on 22 October 2019. (Photo Credit: Carlos Figueroa)

A wave of anti-government protests is sweeping across the globe. From Hong Kong to Lebanon, France to Iraq, Pakistan to Haiti, people have taken to the streets en masse to express a wide array of frustrations and demands. Nowhere, perhaps, has this discontent been more acute than in Latin America where, over the past six months, mass demonstrations have erupted throughout the region, leaving political chaos, social upheaval and countless human casualties in their wake.

These dramatic outbursts have garnered international attention, with many struggling to comprehend, for example, how a four percent rise in metro fare in Chile could spark months of protest with millions of participants. Yet, what we are witnessing today is not new. Rather, it is the boiling over of economic, political and social discontent that has been bubbling furiously beneath the surface for many years.

The final straw

The initial causes of protests in Haiti, Honduras, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia are remarkably varied. They include the removal of fuel subsidies, minor increases to transport costs, corruption scandals, alleged electoral fraud, and inadequate labour rights. These issues served to push societies already on the brink over the edge. The subsequent social explosions shattered the veneer of many apparently functioning and stable countries, revealing deeply polarised and unequal societies.

In Chile and Ecuador, anger over relatively minor increases in transport and fuel costs became a catalyst for wider protests regarding social and economic inequalities and indigenous rights. In Colombia, a planned strike by labour unions ballooned into a much wider movement against the right-wing government of President Iván Duque. Among other complaints, protesters denounced the indifference, and in some cases alleged complicity, of the state regarding the murders of 727 social leaders and 173 demobilised fighters in the past three years.

In Bolivia, long-standing tensions finally reached breaking point this October. The fourteen-year rule of socialist leader Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous president, came to a bitter and violent end when the president claimed victory in highly dubious elections to maintain power for a fourth term. The ensuing clashes between Morales supporters and opponents revealed a highly fragmented Bolivian society. Morales supporters condemn his removal as a coup and fear the reversal of his social policies that benefited the poor and indigenous. His opponents celebrate the same events as the restoration of democracy. With both sides resisting compromise, divisions are likely to deepen, and the immediate future of Bolivia seems highly uncertain and volatile.

Us against them

Repressive official responses to the social unrest have fuelled further protests and exacerbated public anger across Latin America. Chilean president Sebastián Piñera announced that “we are at war against a powerful enemy” after the first day of protests in Santiago. As in Ecuador and Colombia, the government deployed the army to the streets and imposed curfews in major cities. The use of excessive force to contain protests demonstrates the failure of governments to engage with their populations to address the underlying causes of social unrest.

Human Rights Watch found compelling evidence that police in Chile committed serious human rights violations in response to protests. At least 26 people have died since the outbreak of protests on 18 October 2019, including three protesters allegedly fatally shot by military forces using live ammunition. A call for police reforms has been added to the list of protestors’ demands. In Colombia, an eighteen-year-old student died after being shot in the head by a police projectile whilst participating in a peaceful protest. This sparked calls for the dismantling of the country’s riot police and widespread condemnation of state-sanctioned violence.

With protests persisting in both countries, heavy-handed tactics and superficial solutions will only exacerbate problems in the long-term. Initial government responses have served only to heighten the perceived division between the political elite and the rest of society. Like many countries in the region, both Chile and Colombia have troubled and violent histories. Governments must do their utmost to build more trusting and constructive relationships with citizens instead of invoking legacies of repressive authoritarian rule and brutal armed conflict. State security crackdowns seem to be a knee jerk response to popular unrest, but they are only adding fuel to the fire of Latin American discontent.

What’s next?

The recent social unrest comes at a high cost. Thousands of people have been injured and hundreds have died across the region. The destruction of infrastructure and disruption to business have severely damaged already fragile economies. People’s daily lives are on hold as schools close, workers go on strike, and streets clog with marchers. But these mobilisations also offer the prospect of dialogue and real change. Despite the diverse reasons for global protest movements, there is a powerful sense of solidarity amongst demonstrators across countries, facilitated by the mass diffusion of images and interviews on social media. People have felt ignored by politicians for too long. On the streets, at last, they are beginning to regain their voices.

The longer-term outcomes of these social movements are uncertain. Protestors’ demands will not be satisfied overnight, but it is also unlikely that they will simply give up in frustration. The scale and persistence of the mobilisations require engaged and committed responses from those in power. The global protest movement may be explained in part as a chain reaction, with one country after another toppling over into mass social unrest. However, this should not obscure the specific demands of protesters in each country, and thus the different pathways to regain stability.

In Bolivia, perhaps the most volatile situation, measured responses and compromise from both sides are crucial if further violence is to be avoided. The interim government’s priority must be the facilitation of credible and inclusive elections within the next three months. In Ecuador, the government should work with social and indigenous leaders, not against them, to reduce discontent. In Chile and Colombia, political leaders must take seriously the demands of their people and implement significant political, economic and social reforms. The immediate future remains uncertain for Latin American countries, but if governments opt for superficial, short-term solutions to paper over discontent, or resort to repressive force, we will undoubtedly see renewed and intensified social explosions in the not-so-distant future.

Leah Grace is an MA student in Conflict, Security and Development at the King’s War Studies Department. Her main research interests include war-to-peace transitions, local participation in peace processes, and urban violence. She primarily works on conflict-affected countries in Latin America and Central Africa. Prior to joining King’s, she worked as a research assistant at the Agency for Reincorporation and Normalisation in Colombia where she worked on projects relating to the reintegration of former combatants and the impacts of stigmatisation on this process. She also coordinated several community projects with a local NGO focused on violence prevention and the promotion of human rights. Leah Grace holds a BA in French and Spanish from the University of Cambridge.

 

 

 

Protests in Romania: Silence No Longer

by

By: Sabina Ciofu

Romanian protesters marching in Bucharest on 26th February. (Photo by Octav Dragan)

A wave of populist election victories that started in Eastern Europe and which reached as far as the White House now threatens established Western European politics. Leaders from both sides of the political spectrum – on the right in Hungary and Poland, and on the left in Slovakia and the Czech Republic – espouse an illiberal version of democracy. These countries stand in opposition to the traditionally liberal democracies of Western Europe and are in favour of a strong, centralised government that dislikes foreign meddling and domestic rebellion.

In this regional context, it is no surprise that the Romanian governing party, the Social-Democratic Party (PSD) felt emboldened by the huge election win in December to do whatever it takes to enact its view of the world. However, following a number of hasty government decisions to weaken an anti-corruption drive, a huge popular backlash shows that Romania remains the last country in the region to resist this wave.

On the fringes of a troubled European Union, Romanians have braved winter conditions and freezing, sub-zero temperatures to take a vociferous stand for the principles of rule of law and corruption-free politics. Over the last three weeks, the country has seen the largest protests since the Romanian Anti-Communist Revolution in 1989 – which toppled the former dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Corruption has been a serious problem in Romania for much of the last three decades, but recent successes, led by Laura Codruta Kovesi, the chief prosecutor of the anti-corruption authority, have brought a sense of pride and confidence among Romanians that high-ranking public officials are now subject to the law. Although, within the first month of the government’s mandate, these advances appeared at risk.

On the 31st of January, the government adopted an emergency decree to decriminalise abuse in office by officials, if the sums involved were less than approximately 45000 EUR. Passed hastily without any input from either the parliament, justice bodies or civil society, the decree was aimed at stopping all investigations for pending corruption offenses, freeing officials imprisoned for corruption, and blocking further investigations related to those offenses. Although the government was officially led by Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu, the government’s actions were heavily influenced by the leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) – Liviu Dragnea – who argued that these changes were needed to align some laws with the constitution and reduce prison overcrowding. However, both the way in which the decree was passed – in the middle of the night, without any consultation – and the content – which went well beyond what the Constitutional Court required – showed that the government’s real goal was to remove the threat of prosecution from senior Social Democratic Party officials.

Among those who stood to benefit from the decree was Liviu Dragnea himself. He is currently facing trial for diverting a sum short of the limit specified in the decree. He has been accused of using his political influence to secure state salaries for two people working at his party headquarters. He is already barred from office because of a two-year suspended jail sentence for voter fraud.

International reaction

The decree has received widespread condemnation. It was criticized by the European Commission, which warned Romania to not back out from the fight against corruption. “The fight against corruption needs to be advanced, not undone,” EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Vice-President Frans Timmermans said in a statement on the 1st of February, the morning after the decree was passed. “We are following the latest developments in Romania with great concern.” The embassies of Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States subsequently issued a joint statement saying the new measure “undermined Romania’s progress on rule of law and the fight against corruption over the past 10 years.” The embassies said the government should “reverse this unhelpful course.”

The Romanian protests

More than half a million protesters came out in the streets in major cities across Romania, an estimated quarter of a million in Bucharest alone at the peak of the demonstrations. The government has created such a level of distrust that many feel it has lost its credibility and mandate to govern. Besides the sheer number of participants, the protesters in Bucharest have created some very ingenious manifestations of peaceful dissent.

On the night the decree was adopted, after the Justice Minister announced it on TV at 11 pm, people started running through the streets of Bucharest towards the Government building, calling their friends and family to join. People were pouring from all sides of the square for the most spontaneous protest in the history of Romania.

On Sunday the 5th of February, protesters turned on their cell phone lights and pointed them at the sky, creating a sea of bright pinpoints. They sang the national anthem and later went silent for five minutes in memory of the heroes of the 1989 revolution. A week later, the enormous crowds assembled in Victory Square marked the 13th consecutive day of anti-government demonstrations in Bucharest, by forming a huge human flag, pointing the lights of their phones through the colored paper sheets.

On the 4th and 18th of February, parents took their children to Victory Square in Bucharest, for a peaceful protest. The event was largely seen as a lesson about democracy and civic involvement. A few days after the first children’s protest, President Iohannis, of the centre-right National Liberal Party (PNL), during a speech in Parliament, congratulated the parents for bringing their children to the protest to defend democracy.

The flags of the EU and US were often seen in the square and the message “EU, we love YOU” was screened on one of the side buildings. On the Eastern border of Europe, this was a cry of support to the Western liberal order, the rule of law and the democratic values of the EU, the pan-continental union which has offered great opportunities to Romanians over the last ten years and is largely seen as a defender of the country’s democratic path.

The decree was withdrawn by the government on Sunday, February 5th. Few doubt that the Social Democratic Party will try again to save its senior leaders from anticorruption trials. The government is still planning to free around 2,500 prisoners serving sentences of less than five years, through a different decree that is due to be reviewed by parliament, where the government coalition holds a comfortable majority. However, the use of a near-hysterical media campaign by government-linked news channels to harass opposition parties and protesters has increasingly bothered the civil society. Dragnea is often accusing shadowy forces of organizing the protests: “The organization of these protests and their scale show that this is a political gathering. Who is organizing this? Hard to say but I hope that the state institutions have this information.”

Conclusion 

Ultimately, what the protests have illustrated is an emerging middle class in Romania, with concerns that go beyond daily needs and into the realm of values and principles by which the country should abide. They also show a modern, organised and sharp civil society, able to both raise awareness on key issues and gather people around ideas. While the fight against corruption may still be far from over, this nation-wide awakening attests for a maturing of the Romanian society that has been long awaited.

Sabina Maria Ciofu (@SabinaCiofu) is a second-year PhD candidate in Defence Studies at King’s College London, where she explores how machine learning is impacting foreign policy decision-making. She is also a policy advisor in the European Parliament working on the digital economy, foreign affairs and trade issues. Sabina holds a BA in Classics from Cambridge and an MA in War Studies from King’s College London. 

 

Emerging expressions of people’s will beyond elections: The case of West Africa

by

By Myriam Wedraogo:

BURKINA-POLITICS-PROTEST-PARLIAMENT

On the 30th of October 2014, large numbers of protesters prevented the Burkina Faso National Assembly from voting on a constitutional review bill that would allow President Blaise Compaore, in power since October 1987, to be eligible to contest the November 2015 Presidential election in a third term bid. This uprising reached a climax within one day, with the resignation of the President and the announcement of an interim leader in the person of Honore Traore, Chief-of-Staff of Burkina Faso’s armed forces. The unexpectedly quick succession of events was triggered by a massive rejection of the idea of modifying Article 37 of the Burkina Faso Constitution. Indeed on 28 October, ordinary citizens, together with opposition parties expressed their discontent in an unprecedented manner as several media reports on the protest show. People’s will, like a powerful tide, engulfed President Compaore.

These events in Burkina Faso should be analyzed as a social change movement and not merely a political one. While opposition leaders are undoubtedly benefiting from the expressed will of the people against ‘ruling for life’, the mounting thirst for change shows a new dimension of leadership being experienced in the West African region. People are claiming entitlement to not just elect, or be given universal instruments for voting leaders out of office, but to also enforce such a will whenever they feel the so-called legal and universal channels are being manipulated at their expense. Now people want real power, not the type they entrust a leader with, but the kind of power they can use to ensure legally enforced electoral processes.

Between Peaceful and Militarised Enforcement

Other cases of disputed electoral reform in the region offer some reflections for consideration, even if their historical paths and contexts are different from what is happening in Burkina Faso. The main focus should be on how such pre- or post-electoral disputes got the military involved or not.

In 2009, President Tanja of Niger sought and obtained a constitutional review through a referendum that, according to the outcome, meant the people wanted him to stay in power. This move was short-lived as a military coup took place in February 2010 and was followed by elections under the guidance of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

In a different style, the Senegalese peaceful protest movement ‘Y en a marre‘ (‘Enough is enough’) led the population to a historic presidential poll in 2012 whose outcome was more an expression of voting the incumbent President Wade out of office, than one of placing President Macky Sall in power.

Then comes Burkina Faso currently undergoing a “revolution” ahead of the general elections scheduled for November 2015. The Government had prepared two plans in view of the review of the constitution pertaining to the number of presidential terms. Plan A was to have the National Assembly decide on 30 October, in which case, three-quarter of votes in favour of the bill would have sufficed for the bill to be adopted. Plan B was in case of no parliamentary consensus to consult the “sovereign people” through a referendum None of the two plans materialized. Rather, Burkina Faso has from 31 October an interim military ruler, following the resignation of the embattled President Compaore.

This turn of events implies that a presidential election will have to be held within 90 days, assuming all logistical aspects and right transitional processes are put in place; most importantly, assuming the military leader does not begin to experience the syndrome of “appetite comes with the eating”, thus delaying the return to civilian leadership.In any case, civil-military alliances in enforcing people’s will are, rightly or wrongly utilised, and remind us of the need to deeply interrogate our history, our democratic systems and above all, initiate sincere dialogue on where we are aiming at, but also how we want to contribute to enriching democracy manifestations in a globalised setting. Indeed, no amount of defense and security sector reforms combined with the regular holding of elections would sort out our troubled and conflict-prone interpretation of leadership, democracy and governance.

 

___________________

Myriam Wédraogo is an alumna of the African Leadership Center (ALC) who has been working with the German development cooperation since 2010 as an Advisor in peace and security to the Commission of the Economic Community of African States (ECOWAS).