Rioting and rampages spreading across English cities have caused severe property destruction and raised public alarm. Writing in London’s Guardian, community organizer Stafford Scott describes how he was among the group that on August 6th sought information from the police in Tottenham, a poorer section of London. They wanted an official statement on whether Mark Duggan had been killed by police bullets, as had been reported in the news.
All we really wanted was an explanation of what was going on. We needed to hear directly from the police. We waited for hours outside the station for a senior officer to speak with the family, in a demonstration led by young women. A woman-only delegation went into the station, as we wanted to ensure that this did not become confrontational. It was when the young women, many with children, decided to call it a day that the atmosphere changed, and guys in the crowd started to voice and then act out their frustrations.
This event is what most media accounts have identified as the spark that set England on fire, which has caught the world by surprise. Yet, says Scott, “If the rioting was a surprise, people weren’t looking.”
My summer in Britain has been jarred by the outbreaks of turmoil and destruction spreading from London to Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool. A storm of criticism against the police followed—thunderously amplified by politicians, even while they denounced it as criminality. Surely, the real meaning of these events will take time to discern.
There’s a kernel in Scott’s account that should not be overlooked. Assuming that his report is accurate and faithful, it is possible that an appropriate response to the women-led demonstration in front of a police station might have altered the turn of events. At the most basic level, police and security services need to be able to recognize such a peaceful, nonviolent initiative. No matter the depth of the underlying causative problems in the upheaval, in the background is a difficult fact: police are often not trained in differentiating one nonviolent method from another. Although police services are increasingly trained in mediation, crowd control, and how to handle criminals nonviolently, here they allowed a demonstration to turn into a riot.
Philip B. Heymann’s 1992 analysis of South Africa’s long struggle against apartheid suggests that success in nonviolent action happens through a three-way relationship among the nonviolent challengers, the target group, and the military, police, or security services. If at all possible, Heymann concludes, the challengers should clarify their grievances, purposes, and demands, so as to minimize obstruction or interruption by the other two. This means probing not only the complaint of the nonviolent protagonists, but also examining the objectives and actions of the adversary and police.
In this case there may not have been an immediately evident and concrete target group, but Heymann’s insight is instructive: bring the police into the picture and treat them as part of a relationship. This may be hard advice for some people to swallow. Even so, in analyzing the riots in England, observers must ask whether the police understood that they, too, must be part of a relationship.
We must also acknowledge, however, that there is only so much that police services can do. A failure for decades to address larger social and economic problems make this sort of conflict almost inevitable. A number of distinguished researchers have clearly shown what underlies such a catastrophe. The findings of Sir Michael Marmot and Richard G. Wilkinson contribute a powerful larger frame for considering the turmoil of the English cities. Clinical data in Marmot and Wilkinson’s Social Determinants of Health (2001) concerning well-being for modern societies, supports their contention that social pathologies (crime, high levels of imprisonment, mental illness, and poor health status) are more common in societies with steep maldistribution of wealth than where economic distribution has resulted in lesser gaps between rich and the poorest. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett explain in The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone (2009) that income inequality correlates with thirteen health and social problems, such as unemployment and drug use. The World Health Organization’s Commission on Social Determinants of Health urges countries to “tackle the inequitable distribution of power, money, and resources.” Britain, along with the United States, are known to have the lowest rates of social mobility among the industrialized countries.
Whatever the subsequent, numerous lessons to be drawn from the wreckage in the English cities, it would be prudent to recognize that police (and diplomats and journalists) need formal training in understanding civil citizen action, and how to respond to it as part of a relationship. That alone, however, will not be enough, unless governments and the public address the underlying social and economic factors.
Vietnam antiwar organizer Robert Levering discusses his groundbreaking new documentary “The Movement and the ‘Madman’” airing on PBS.
By understanding how mainstream political culture co-opts elected officials, grassroots groups can help them resist.
A movement led by people with lived experience of the U.K. immigration system has sprung up to fight for more humane treatment and housing for refugees.
You wrote: “Although police services are increasingly trained in mediation, crowd control, and how to handle criminals nonviolently, here they allowed a demonstration to turn into a riot.”
I don’t believe it is your intention, but you seem to be laying some of the fault for the violent behavior of the protesters at the feet of the police force.
Your use of the word “allowed” concerns me.
The only way they could have disallowed such, would have been to use crushing counter-force.
The rioting was not done by the peaceful demonstrators. It was done by a uncivilized rabble that needed a pretext to violence and saw their opening.
This is a textbook Girardian escalation of reciprocity where in a small violence is used a pretext to more violence, resulting in the mob which turns on innocent victims (the poor shopowners and other members of the humble productive class who were attacked and had their private property destroyed as they became the scapegoats for the mob).
The only way the police could have “disallowed” the violent mob in search of a victims would have been to have returned the violence with more violence.
I don’t believe they “allowed” the violence, so much as they hoped it would dissipate without having to use violent counterforce in order to contain it.
Obviously, they miscalculated.
But let’s not displace blame.
A criminal mob saw an opportunity to turn their frustration against innocents, and they did so.
There cannot be any sanction or apologetics for what was witnessed in England. It was no righteous protest. It was not righteous demonstration. It was naked, irresponsible, and childish violence and criminality.