Of course that's their job. The police force is not designed to be a vehicle for social change nor for justice.
The way the system is supposed to work is that engaged citizenry actively overhaul unjust laws and apparatuses, and the police then enforce those new laws.
Unfortunately we have abysmally low civic engagement in most of the western world which leads to the mess we are currently in.
I like to make fun of the French as much as anyone else but I really respect and admire the French people's propensity for protest and to stand up for what they believe. That's advanced citizenship in action.
Advanced citizenship is about not needing revolutions, it is a sustainable governing process existing, one that integrates citizens in their daily lives. So far, I've seen shittier governments take out better ones, because they have more might. I don't think what is currently on Earth is by any means close to ideal because governments spend so much resource on worrying about other governments taking them out.
I'll agree that the citizens of France feel empowered while Americans feel disempowered. And empowerment is a natural consequence of identification with control of larger structures.
Most Americans don't feel like they have any control over larger structures in their countries.
> Most Americans don't feel like they have any control over larger structures in their countries.
This is called "working the refs" or "talking their book".
Americans' main interest in local government is blocking new housing project to pump their property values. So no matter what happens they just say there weren't enough meetings about it and the project needs to be cancelled because it didn't get community input.
You don't have to believe them on larger political topics for the same reason you don't have to believe them here.
> I like to make fun of the French as much as anyone else but I really respect and admire the French people's propensity for protest and to stand up for what they believe. That's advanced citizenship in action.
You'll be disappointed then. The French are protesting for benefits and not for social change. Aka, they are not better than the police they are engaging with.
The French aren't protesting for good things, they all believe in 100 different conspiracy theories at the same time and are protesting that the government won't reveal Qanon is real.
It's also completely ineffective, because the government can just ignore them when they get bored, and they don't actually get voted out or anything.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Democratic systems of government are messy, and that's okay. It's not for you or me to decide what's a "good" thing to protest.
So, your claim is that protests, whose purpose is change public opinion and to inform leaders of the public opinion, has no part in a democratic process, a system in which a government’s authority derives from public support? Am I understanding your claim correctly?
Yes. There is no part of the official process where anyone is required to listen to or respect the opinion of a protest. That's kind of obvious.
If you want a rep to know your opinion on something you can call them.
The point of a protest is for when they're not listening to you, which is why they feature more in not-officially-democratic politics like dictatorships. But for that to work, it has to be so large they can't ignore you. (Otherwise, if they're small and still work through being annoying it's minority rule, which isn't democratic. But like I said that doesn't happen because you can just ignore them.)
All politics depends on popular support because your subjects can either leave the country or have you killed if they really don't like you. Democratic politics means there's official channels for exercising this by voting instead of having to do this.
> There is no part of the official process where anyone is required to listen to or respect the opinion of a protest. That's kind of obvious.
Actually, I think there is one - government media. CBC/BBC/etc should cover these instead of covering them up. If they represented the citizens voices honestly, they might not feel they have to blockade parliament to get their point across.
> Democratic politics means there's official channels for exercising this by voting instead of having to do this.
That breaks down a bit when your media only presents one side of certain issues.
There's no requirement for corporate media to be honest, but for state media paid for by the citizens that's basically its only purpose.
> If you want a rep to know your opinion on something you can call them.
You can contact them, but if you can't do it in public others won't know and they can basically kill issues by just ignoring them.
In the French case, media does interview the protestors, which is why we know they're not upset about economic unfairness or whatever but instead think the government is suppressing that the pyramids were built by Jews to mind control you.
This is exactly what the media does, point to the craziest and imply that the group shares all their views. Even if everyone in the group was a conspiracy theorist they can still be right that workers are feeling the strain more than others.
We need to steelman the views of our countrymen, not mock them.
Think of what they'd say about your side if the tables were turned.
The way the system is supposed to work is that engaged citizenry actively overhaul unjust laws and apparatuses, and the police then enforce those new laws.
Unfortunately we have abysmally low civic engagement in most of the western world which leads to the mess we are currently in.
I like to make fun of the French as much as anyone else but I really respect and admire the French people's propensity for protest and to stand up for what they believe. That's advanced citizenship in action.