Well, it doesn't really solve anything, does it? In fact all it does is harm their position, through peaceful protest, they would gain more sympathy.
This is an oft repeated refrain by liberals and establishment types after any social protest. Peaceful demonstration and protest does not affect change, it just perpetuates the status quo. The powers that be only start to take protesters and demonstrators seriously when they actually pose a concrete threat to stability.
I agree with this. Whatever institution holds power--peaceful protests fit within their narrative. Only by causing instability or radical departures from the institutionalized system will change happen.
You can pose a concrete threat to stability via peaceful methods, in my opinion - there are plenty of historic examples. Violent protests in the modern world only create the narrative in the minds of the establishment that the opinions of those protesting are invalid and must be stamped out.
So I don't know much about protesting, but I was talking to someone the other day and they told me an interesting little anecdote. There was a city that passed some very strong anti-vagrancy laws that had upset a lot of people. To protest, they decided to occupy the city park after dark, one of the things that became outlawed because of said laws. The police would come to talk to them and said they're allowed to stay and protest, but they have to fine them. The protesters accepted their fines, stayed to protest, and on this went for about a week or so. To make a long story short, everyone kind of won in this. The protesters got to protest, the city collected revenue in both fines as well as court fees to have the protester's records dismissed. Everyone got to go home happy. Except the homeless, cause they didn't have homes to go home to and the protesters didn't change a thing in regards to the law. That said, I don't know how I feel about violent protests either. What good is the world to anybody if all we ever do is threaten to burn it down?
I think there must be a clear-cut campaign that has to be waged when it comes to protesting - simply showing up with a sign isn't enough, I don't think. I'm thinking Gandhi style rallies and hitting the economic system in a profound way. I must admit that the failure of the Occupy movement and the movement in Hong Kong really shook my faith in peaceful protesting, but at the same time I really do think that with enough of a coherent vision it would be possible to make change happen. But maybe I'm being naive.
>there are plenty of historic examples There are more examples of peaceful protests that fail to achieve anything. The most famous "peaceful" protest movements (MLK and Gandhi) were backed up by the implicit threat of violence by aligned groups. If you're interested in this subject, I highly recommend the book How Nonviolence Protects the State.
And yet there are many examples (probably more, in fact) of armed and violent protests also failing to achieve their goals, or having their goals distorted. It is true that the peaceful movements of Gandhi and MLK in particular were also accompanied by an implied violence from allied groups, but at the same time there were movements (especially in India) that had tried to achieve independence via violence for well over 70-80 years, always failing.
I personally wouldn't turn to violence, but only because I'm not a physically aggressive person - in fact, I'm rather cowardly when it comes to conflict. I can understand why people would, though. The people of Greece have tried: Austerity. It didn't work. The economic situation declined further. Protesting the austerity package, peacefully and democratically, whilst retaining their government. It didn't work. The party accepted its debtees' demands for more austerity. Democratically and peacefully electing an anti-austerity party. It sort-of worked in that the party said "maybe, we'll have a referendum". Voting "No" to austerity, peacefully and democratically, in said referendum. It didn't work. The party accepted the terms of another austerity package.
It seems to me that the Greeks have been doing all they can through democratic and peaceful channels, and - however much sympathy for them the rest of the world may have - their demands have not been met.
There probably are other channels of participation, but I can't immediately think what they would be.
And I'm pretty sure if I can't think of them, the poor Greeks - after five years of poverty and high unemployment and not being listened to - aren't really in the mood to think of one either. I agree, daltonslaw, that violent protest doesn't solve anything. But I can understand where the frustration comes from, and I think the rest of Europe (myself included) shares the responsibility for the Greeks' plight.
The more I learn about this, the more I think the people of Greece have much to be angry about. Their government has sold them out too many times now. I can't even begin to understand how they must feel. I can't imagine this happening here in America.
No, I can't really imagine it happening in America either, particularly not at the national level. But the role Greece has in Europe is not quite like the role America has in the world.
A good way of thinking about the power structure might be to equate Greece with a state (say, Maine) and the Brussels government with Washington. Now say Maine decided it wanted to introduce lots of public services - brand new schools, public healthcare, free higher education, stuff like that, and borrowed money to do so, and it got to borrow money cheaply because it was part of the US. And then, ten years later, Maine was suddenly like "I totally can't pay all this back, sorry. I guess I'll just declare myself bankrupt. It worked for Argentina..."
In that case, I could envisage Washington stepping in and obliging Maine to sort out its finances. Especially once all the big banks Maine owed money to started lobbying. And however much the people of Maine complained about having all their public financing cut, I doubt the state would have much leverage.
It's not the same, of course, as Greece. Greece's spending, though prolific, was in line with European norms (Free universal education and healthcare etc. are pretty much considered a basic human right in Europe). Greece is an independent country, not a state. But. It did benefit from being in the Euro, then mess up its finances and jeopardize that very same currency union. None of this, of course, was the fault of your average Greek person, hence the unfairness of it all. And the irony, of course, that all this happened in the country that invented democracy.