[ExI] pussy riot case

[Anders Sandberg]

There is a long and interesting debate in philosophy, law and politics 
about what kinds of protests against the political system are 
acceptable. Sure, rules are different in different times and cultures, 
but which ones make internal sense? Or, if one is universalist, which 
ones are actually right?

A not too smart op-ed writer in a Swedish newspaper made a comparison 
between the verdict against Pussy Riot and the subsequent outrage and 
the verdicts against the London rioters and the lack of widespread 
outrage against those. The problem was of course that the rioters were 
doing general vandalism to express their disquiet, not a targeted 
protest. There probably *should* have been more outrage against the 
harsh penalties against "Facebook organizers", but again this might be 
more a matter of a legal system being out of touch with informational 
realities. But even recognizing that, it is pretty clear that just 
lashing out is not really a proper protest: it does not have a goal, it 
rarely achieves any ends (at least not ends desired by the rioters).

Another recent case I have been following (since one of the perpetrators 
is in my network) was the aerial bombardment of teddy bears with 
parachutes bearing messages about democracy in Belorussia. This turned 
into grand comedy as the country first denied that it had ever happened, 
despite posted YouTube videos. Then the chief of the Air Force was 
fired. Then the Swedish ambassador was asked to leave (he has pretty 
close ties with the democratic opposition) and eventually all diplomatic 
contact between the countries ended. Meanwhile a clearly riled up 
Lukashenko was shouting, only achieving more democracy support from the 
EU and no support from Putin. Then the perpetrators were sent a formal 
letter demanding that they show up at the KGB headquarters in Minsk for 
"discussion": instead they sent a hilarious invitation to Lukashenko to 
come and visit them in Sweden, putting it online.

Was this a good protest? It got the world even more aware of the antics 
of the last pure dictatorship in Europe, put even more pressure on it 
and embarassed the leadership to no end. The message was also clear: 
things would be better with a democratic, open society. But it also 
likely put the opposition in a tougher spot. Estimating whether it all 
things consider was good is hard. But it is worth noting that during the 
Arab Spring few people on the outside felt that it was a bad idea 
criticizing bad governments because they might crack down on their 
people more harshly.

The teddy bear case also demonstrates another thing: private people can 
and do produce foreign entanglements. The Swedish foreign department 
seems to have handled the affair without rancor (and Carl Bildt has 
responded to it on his blog with perfect smug sarcasm - he gets the 
entire sarcasm budget of Sweden, since he makes good use of it) while 
the security police got totally confused when told about it: the 
responsible person appears to have disbelieved the story until he read 
about it in the newspapers, and they have no clue of what to do with KGB 
agents threatening Swedish citizens at home.

So, extrapolating: expect to see more trans-border protests as 
technology and globalisation continues apace. Today anybody can be a 
foreign agent - no competence or idea about the issues needed. So there 
will also be more cases where people stumble into conflicts and 
sensitive situations with all the finesse of elephants in china shops. 
The methods that constitute a (valid?) protest are also going to mutate 
and evolve wildly. This is going to make paranoid governments go 
bonkers, cause a few policy disasters, and open societies are going to 
have to consider just how much their citizens will be allowed to play 
James Bond.



-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford University