Historically, organized protests or demonstrations have been a way for people to rally around one another in light of policies, situations, or events that are typically antagonizing to a large or prominent group of people. While they have been occurring for centuries, large protests and demonstrations in the past few decades have had a relatively recently-developed, momentum-boosting factor -- instant media. Many large media networks are able to cover many places around the globe and track movements of all kinds, which makes coverage of large demonstrations very accessible. For example, in America, movements such as the Black Lives Matter movement are heavily covered in the media and are widely discussed, making it a hot topic within our nation. With this amount of coverage, combined with social media, protests and movements have the potential to spread very quickly, making it easy for millions of people to join if they choose.
The same applies to local news with local issues and politics. Many people are able to join a movement if they believe in it, which is a beautiful thing, especially if you have the right to do so (which some do not under different governments). But does this awesome momentum-building factor also inhibit the success of change? Are protests truly an effective way to help reform policies or situations that are antagonizing so many people? Let me explain.
I attended my very first demonstration march this past week in Des Moines, Iowa for a cause I believe in very deeply -- the need for mental healthcare reform (specifically in Iowa). I had learned about the event via Facebook, when I noticed someone else I knew was going to be attending. I immediately planned on making the trip from home to Des Moines to be a part of this protest, and I invited other people to join me as well. It was amazing to be in an environment where every person believed in what we were marching for, and I am so thankful for the ability to rally together for such an important cause.
However, as the event wore on, I noticed that a lot of the content of the speeches being made were personal stories -- which, while certainly powerful and extremely important to hear, were almost distracting from a solution to the problem at hand. Many stories touched my heart and were extremely relatable, but I wanted to hear more about how we can possibly change policy. There were a few speakers that highlighted exactly that -- people running for district offices who explained the need for the community's voice in legislature on this issue, who urged us to write and call our legislators until something was done. I wanted to know so much more about what to do to create change, and how to get other people to join me in doing so.
After my very first experience being a part of a demonstration, it left me wondering if these sort of demonstrations, rallying together and marching among other things, could possibly be inhibiting the creation of actual change that people need. Does coverage of these movements allow people to believe in them (or not) in spirit, but discourage them from provoking actual change? If so, it's time to rethink the groupthink.
Protests are an amazing way to bring people together under a common belief or need for change, but one cannot expect change if one does not act on belief. If there are hundreds of people that rally together for change, but only one person who actually actively tries to inflict or inspire change, then what is the point of the movement? If you choose to be a part of a demonstration, that should be only the first small step. If you have the ability to write and call and elect the people who write your laws and policies, use it to your advantage. Protests are a wonderful way to bring people together for a common cause, but if you truly believe in it -- act on it.
