What does "The Right to Information" mean when we discuss human-rights issues? is personal as well as societal. There are both distinctions and overlaps between what is important to an individual versus a collective and comparatively, there are also differences and similarities when we examine what it might mean to take action after certain information is relayed that indicates an ongoing threat in that society {shared values}, noting that “access to information is also important to democratic participation and control.” (64) When we are denied information we need to participate as citizens or residents of a particular society or region, we are stripped of access and that denial to access can fuel various levels of conflict. When the conflict reaches a state of urgency, we begin to question what to do about that conflict: For example, does conflict imply violence? What exactly is non-violent conflict resistance?
Social movements are by and large non-violent. One impressive and government-altering movement can be seen in “Bringing Down A Dictator: A Force More Powerful.”
What we do not see from mainstream media accounts of the Balkan conflict, is that under Milosevic rule and after the NATO bombings in 1999, despite the supposed patriotic alignment, OTPOR, a non-violent student group began to make student demonstrations everyday. OTPOR became linked to its symbol, a clenched sprayed all over.
The members refused at first to align with politics and tried to coyly operate in cafés, and communicated with cell-phones and through the Internet reminding us “Cyberspace therefore holds the potential for a greater diversity of opinions and expressions as they actually exist in society, thus strengthening the public discourse and sphere” (56).
Therefore, wholesome participation is congruent to realistic representation.
When relating the material presented in the film to Human Rights in the Global Information Society (Rike Frank Jorgensen, MIT Press: 2006), I saw the generative themes of human rights playing out in the space of the democratic revolution in Serbia through the interconnectivity of thoughts and distribution of ideas amongst civil society as a means of mobilization to protect basic rights, communication, political participation, and representation of societal voices: all of these rights were condemned during the Milosevic rule, especially for the marginalized and disempowered groups.
Human rights activists respond to the “neglected right”, the freedom of association and assembly, mainly because “governments or authorities seeking to roll back or limit the rights of association and assembly often do so by restricting rights in other areas, such as freedom of expression or privacy, that are required to exercise freedom of association or assembly (155).
OTPOR tried to correct the lack of information by beginning to announce their presence through the distribution of black and white leaflets with their symbol which simply, but effectively, read
“Because I love Srbija & Freedom.”
The disadvantaged still remain technologically isolated which is why it was coined the term "the digital divide". It is vital for human rights groups to assemble and speak collectively, and accurately, on behalf of those limited in their access to such information.
OTPOR made extensive use of cyber-activism and an exceptional model to disseminate information as innovatively and widely as possible and an exemplary model of integrative media strategies with non-violent social action. Positive peace was reinforced and taken under their wing by demonstrating, literally, that they had a right to assemble, a right to opinion and cultural expression, and a right to education, all in the name of democracy.
The group was willing to accept assistance from outside perspectives. They put up art installations around Belgrade, such as on Milosevic’s “birthday”, they designed a cake representing the nine separated territories of Yugoslavia (Vojvodina, Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia, to name a few) and pieces of cake being eaten by him. This was a representation of his consumption of all the regions, subsuming them entirely under his rule. Images can be viewed from this article-archive:
Another art-installation piece was of a lunar eclipse– an eclipse of Slobodan’s Srbija. These, as well as following activist conceptions and consecrations, was a response to the predominance of the Fall of Serbia. OTPOR also organized a public New Year’s Eve celebration where they played rock music specifically because it was discouraged by the regime, but the larger point was that they were attempting to highlight the gravity of the war and how this epoch had no reason to celebrate; So, they suddenly canceled the party, and had broadcasted on a big screen the tragedy of the current war through footage of murders and displacement, ending it with:m“Go home and think so that we MAY have a celebration next year.”
Other acts of non-violent resistance were even implemented in their fashion choices, sporting stolen military garb with black leather to confuse possible infiltrators. Gene Sharp , an American non-violent scholar, was referred to in their lessons and teachings/workshops for strategic planning. Popovic, one of the founders, commented in an interview, “You won’t win by being on the defensive. You’ll only win on the offensive. You don’t want to revolutionize by chopping off the head of the pyramid.” In other words, bringing down the head of a state will not dismantle a constructed architecture of evil already in place. OTPOR took this into account and created their activism from a decentralized perspective: there were neither national leaders nor main committees. The many layers of leadership prevented any focused destruction. They concentrated on spreading their activism through smaller cities, and they transformed communities from hopeless and apathetic into productively angry (meaning their anger was befitting of activist strategies as they transformed the anger into action). Unfortunately, they gained a reputation as terrorists through the nationally televised media conference. "Terrorists", "fascists", "criminals", and "drug addicts" were the cliché profiles applied to them, but the members never hesitated at an opportunity to convert these attributes into a parody.
The Democratic Opposition of Serbia (D.O.S.) was forming at the same time, led by Kostunica and then backed by Djindic (later assassinated by a supposed member of the Serbian secret police). They set up political strategies through the assembly of 18 political parties promising to oppose Milosevic. Local press and television compensated for the lack of power that they had in Belgrade. “Gotov-Je” became Otpor’s new campaign. Translated, “It is Finished”, they hoped to align the people’s hopes with an emerging reality that Milosevic could be weakened by the increasing non-violent resistance.
On September 24, 2000, Election Day, 10,000 people were at the polling location. An overwhelming majority voted against Milosevic’s re-election. Milosevic would not accept, but they anticipated that he would not accept. Therefore, a strike was called in response. Even miners whose company comprised 70% of Serbia’s electric power at the time, in the South of Belgrade went on strike. It became a symbol of national resistance to convey that a majority of the people were truly against Milosevic. Violence against police was discouraged. They, fortunately, avoided bloodshed. Post-election scandal, there were ten days of increasing pressure which clearly painted a picture of a nation against Milosevic.
Former Mayor Velimir Ilic of Cacak, an assertive politician, personally convinced the police in charge of barricades that they could continue doing their job by standing aside and letting his crew remove the blockades themselves. As a result, the police did not defend the blockades. City Hall had given the police orders to break up the crowd, but they refused to adhere to it because the force used against them in the uprising would signify total destruction as well as the fact that their own children were in that crowd. Following that, parliament was burst into flames, and the Ballots along with them.
Gene Sharp stated in the film, “Broad-based coalition of popular, non-violent protest can sweep away a dictatorship more quickly than any covert action network,” which is quite evident in this history.
Vojislav Kostunica, the popular candidate for the D.O.S., then became President on October 6, 2000. It helps one to realize that all social movements must eventually coalesce vertically and operate mindfully of human rights paradigms. To further guide a viewer to reflect after viewing this film, they might ask themselves:
My observation is that non-violence typically displaces the idea of "power". Violence is immediate and thus, receives an immediate reaction. Non-violence, although rare, is gradual and more sustainable, but it requires the patience and tenacity of a well-organized battalion. Have the foreign policies of major superpowers taken the potential of nonviolent conflict seriously to promote democracy and human rights in overturning repressive regimes? I’d like to leave you with one last question:
Can you think of significant nonviolent conflicts happening around the world today?
If so, perhaps we should examine the success of their implementation and strategy and stop thinking that revolutions are predicated on disruptive violence. We can peacefully strive to obtain justice in society as long as we maintain cooperation, focus, and creativity without naivetë.
Social movements are by and large non-violent. One impressive and government-altering movement can be seen in “Bringing Down A Dictator: A Force More Powerful.”
What we do not see from mainstream media accounts of the Balkan conflict, is that under Milosevic rule and after the NATO bombings in 1999, despite the supposed patriotic alignment, OTPOR, a non-violent student group began to make student demonstrations everyday. OTPOR became linked to its symbol, a clenched sprayed all over.
The members refused at first to align with politics and tried to coyly operate in cafés, and communicated with cell-phones and through the Internet reminding us “Cyberspace therefore holds the potential for a greater diversity of opinions and expressions as they actually exist in society, thus strengthening the public discourse and sphere” (56).
Therefore, wholesome participation is congruent to realistic representation.
When relating the material presented in the film to Human Rights in the Global Information Society (Rike Frank Jorgensen, MIT Press: 2006), I saw the generative themes of human rights playing out in the space of the democratic revolution in Serbia through the interconnectivity of thoughts and distribution of ideas amongst civil society as a means of mobilization to protect basic rights, communication, political participation, and representation of societal voices: all of these rights were condemned during the Milosevic rule, especially for the marginalized and disempowered groups.
 |
| [Original image by James Nachtwey, "Croatian Militiamen attacking Muslims, Mostar, Bosnia-herzegovina"1993; Editing by ®Ada daCosta] |
Human rights activists respond to the “neglected right”, the freedom of association and assembly, mainly because “governments or authorities seeking to roll back or limit the rights of association and assembly often do so by restricting rights in other areas, such as freedom of expression or privacy, that are required to exercise freedom of association or assembly (155).
OTPOR tried to correct the lack of information by beginning to announce their presence through the distribution of black and white leaflets with their symbol which simply, but effectively, read
“Because I love Srbija & Freedom.”
OTPOR made extensive use of cyber-activism and an exceptional model to disseminate information as innovatively and widely as possible and an exemplary model of integrative media strategies with non-violent social action. Positive peace was reinforced and taken under their wing by demonstrating, literally, that they had a right to assemble, a right to opinion and cultural expression, and a right to education, all in the name of democracy.
The group was willing to accept assistance from outside perspectives. They put up art installations around Belgrade, such as on Milosevic’s “birthday”, they designed a cake representing the nine separated territories of Yugoslavia (Vojvodina, Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia, to name a few) and pieces of cake being eaten by him. This was a representation of his consumption of all the regions, subsuming them entirely under his rule. Images can be viewed from this article-archive:
Another art-installation piece was of a lunar eclipse– an eclipse of Slobodan’s Srbija. These, as well as following activist conceptions and consecrations, was a response to the predominance of the Fall of Serbia. OTPOR also organized a public New Year’s Eve celebration where they played rock music specifically because it was discouraged by the regime, but the larger point was that they were attempting to highlight the gravity of the war and how this epoch had no reason to celebrate; So, they suddenly canceled the party, and had broadcasted on a big screen the tragedy of the current war through footage of murders and displacement, ending it with:m“Go home and think so that we MAY have a celebration next year.”
Other acts of non-violent resistance were even implemented in their fashion choices, sporting stolen military garb with black leather to confuse possible infiltrators. Gene Sharp , an American non-violent scholar, was referred to in their lessons and teachings/workshops for strategic planning. Popovic, one of the founders, commented in an interview, “You won’t win by being on the defensive. You’ll only win on the offensive. You don’t want to revolutionize by chopping off the head of the pyramid.” In other words, bringing down the head of a state will not dismantle a constructed architecture of evil already in place. OTPOR took this into account and created their activism from a decentralized perspective: there were neither national leaders nor main committees. The many layers of leadership prevented any focused destruction. They concentrated on spreading their activism through smaller cities, and they transformed communities from hopeless and apathetic into productively angry (meaning their anger was befitting of activist strategies as they transformed the anger into action). Unfortunately, they gained a reputation as terrorists through the nationally televised media conference. "Terrorists", "fascists", "criminals", and "drug addicts" were the cliché profiles applied to them, but the members never hesitated at an opportunity to convert these attributes into a parody.
The Democratic Opposition of Serbia (D.O.S.) was forming at the same time, led by Kostunica and then backed by Djindic (later assassinated by a supposed member of the Serbian secret police). They set up political strategies through the assembly of 18 political parties promising to oppose Milosevic. Local press and television compensated for the lack of power that they had in Belgrade. “Gotov-Je” became Otpor’s new campaign. Translated, “It is Finished”, they hoped to align the people’s hopes with an emerging reality that Milosevic could be weakened by the increasing non-violent resistance.
On September 24, 2000, Election Day, 10,000 people were at the polling location. An overwhelming majority voted against Milosevic’s re-election. Milosevic would not accept, but they anticipated that he would not accept. Therefore, a strike was called in response. Even miners whose company comprised 70% of Serbia’s electric power at the time, in the South of Belgrade went on strike. It became a symbol of national resistance to convey that a majority of the people were truly against Milosevic. Violence against police was discouraged. They, fortunately, avoided bloodshed. Post-election scandal, there were ten days of increasing pressure which clearly painted a picture of a nation against Milosevic.
Former Mayor Velimir Ilic of Cacak, an assertive politician, personally convinced the police in charge of barricades that they could continue doing their job by standing aside and letting his crew remove the blockades themselves. As a result, the police did not defend the blockades. City Hall had given the police orders to break up the crowd, but they refused to adhere to it because the force used against them in the uprising would signify total destruction as well as the fact that their own children were in that crowd. Following that, parliament was burst into flames, and the Ballots along with them.
Gene Sharp stated in the film, “Broad-based coalition of popular, non-violent protest can sweep away a dictatorship more quickly than any covert action network,” which is quite evident in this history.
Vojislav Kostunica, the popular candidate for the D.O.S., then became President on October 6, 2000. It helps one to realize that all social movements must eventually coalesce vertically and operate mindfully of human rights paradigms. To further guide a viewer to reflect after viewing this film, they might ask themselves:
- How often has nonviolent conflict happened in history?
- Must leaders of nonviolent movements be as charismatic as Gandhi or Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
- Why has the successful use of nonviolent power not been more widely appreciated?
My observation is that non-violence typically displaces the idea of "power". Violence is immediate and thus, receives an immediate reaction. Non-violence, although rare, is gradual and more sustainable, but it requires the patience and tenacity of a well-organized battalion. Have the foreign policies of major superpowers taken the potential of nonviolent conflict seriously to promote democracy and human rights in overturning repressive regimes? I’d like to leave you with one last question:
Can you think of significant nonviolent conflicts happening around the world today?
If so, perhaps we should examine the success of their implementation and strategy and stop thinking that revolutions are predicated on disruptive violence. We can peacefully strive to obtain justice in society as long as we maintain cooperation, focus, and creativity without naivetë.
Comments
Post a Comment