Comments on: Evicting the Public: Why has occupying public spaces brought such heavy-handed repression?

By: margot james

margot james — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:23:54 +0000

There is a conflict between people who wish to stage a permanent protest, rather than make their views known via protest, and the rights of individuals and groups, formal or otherwise, to enjoy the public space. A democracy should defend to the death the right of protest whilst respecting the rights of all people, moneyed or poor, regardless of their views, to pass the time of day in and around the beautiful surroundings of St Pauls Cathedral or Parliament Square in the expectation that such space will be maintained for the public good and not for the right of permanent protest exercised by a small handful of individuals.

By: Kara

Kara — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:04 +0000

Welcome to the LSE, Mr Director! Help us return this hallowed institution from what it has become, a private company, to what it was and always should be, a university!

By: Martin Garthwaite

Martin Garthwaite — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:29:50 +0000

Firstly, congratulations on your appointment to LSE, the school has a great tradition of employing directors from outside I’m pleased that this tradition is being maintained.

I think that the politicians and police are directly attacking the concept of the commons, a public space free to all. Academic institutions are supposed to be apolitical and neutral, so to see an American policeman casually walk up and down a line of students, spraying them with pepper spray, was for me far more shocking than Tiananmen Square. This completely casual use of violence by a policeman against a peaceful protest on a commons was truly shocking. We have no expectations of Chinese, but I do in a democracy.

Using property rights as a justification for removal of protesters moves us back to the 19th century and certainly sends the message that whatever the bankers do, governments will always protect them financially and more importantly, criminalise protest by the publics that suffer due to their actions.

By: Shakuntala Banaji

Shakuntala Banaji — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:10:18 +0000

I could not agree with you more – excellent post! After researching for the last few years the disjuncture between how young people across the Western world are enjoined to ‘participate’ in democracy but then discouraged from doing so as soon as it becomes apparent that what they are doing does not fit with the basic dutiful model outlined by elites and authority figures – picking up litter, reading broadsheet newspapers, voting (but not for the far left or the far right) – it is evident to me that the crisis of democracy we face is quite the one that it is made out to be. We must start challenging the discourses which mean it is ‘democratic’ to be violent against people for protesting, but not democratic for people to protest in imaginative and dissenting ways.

By: Steve Zielinski

Steve Zielinski — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:53:17 +0000

“It sounds melodramatic to say that democracy itself is at stake in the widespread moves to repress its main strategy of public demonstration. But it is true. Happily American democracy is not on its last legs; there is plenty of chance to fight back against repression and elite efforts to manage public participation. But the issue is basic. After all, democracy depends not just on voting and the rule of law but on social movements and public expressions of dissent.”

Are you confident that American democracy is not on it’s last legs?

I ask because America’s elections are useless instruments for the reformers. The rule of law died a while back. The Obama administration and a dysfunctional Congress are seeking to impose an austerity regime on the country, one that will likely result in a semi-permanent high-unemployment economy. And now the various police forces are abusing leftish protesters because they are protesters. I’d say the United States is and has been dedemocratizing.