Today I attended my first rally outside Parliament - and in many ways it lived up to its definition "a large gathering of people intended to arouse enthusiasm ". This rally was not in any militant - there was some hearty chanting, singing and holding of bill boards but the numbers there were impressively large but subdued - the police presence was in the end unecessary. But it does beg a few questions regarding the use of rallies to make points (i.e are they the best option):
- Some dislike rallies because they feel it taints them - especially if extremists turn up at rallies and make their points in violent ways. Rallies have a feeling of confrontation in that people want to force the issue into the spotlight in order to make a point - some by nature of their personality, may prefer a subtler way. Does a rally mean you become labelled/sterotyped and therefore might not get so many people ready to talk to you about your cause, because of your actions?
- Others attend rallies because they want to make known the strenght of feeling regarding a particular issue and perhaps feel other methods of lobbying are ineffective - such as writing to your MP . A rally shows conviction and commitment to a cause, as you are prepared to give up time etc for something that may not have a clear/measurable outcome.
- Rallies are indeed more visual but at the same time are very hard to control - you can organise one but you can't plan who will attend and thus what kind of result you will have - rallies can end up being detrimental to organisations credibility if they turn bad.
- What matters most at a rally - many associate rallies with the noise they make or the trouble they cause - but surely it is more about the number of people that turn out to protest and the indeed the manner they conduct themselves if it is decent and peaceful.
No comments:
Post a Comment