Soft Revolution and the Power of Peace

Two years ago South Koreans took to the streets to force an unpopular and corrupt government from power.

Could the same happen elsewhere? Is there anything that the people of other countries can learn from the success of the so-called “candlelight-revolution” of South Korea?

When I first came to Korea 10 years ago, I noticed right away how common protests are here. The country has a long history of protests. I won’t go in to detail, but you can Google the Gwangju uprising for just one example of when people were literally prepared to put their lives on the line for what they believed in. More recently there have been protests about agricultural policy, the American Free Trade Agreement and university tuition fees.

Just today I drove past a group of middle aged women protesting outside the local police station. I was too busy driving to read their signs, but they seemed to be having a great time; sitting cross-legged on the floor, gossiping and sharing food.

In a country where the individual has very little power, it is quite a common and effective method of multiplying that power so that it can match that of the state or private interests. But a protest is more than just a way to multiply people power. It is a way to show tangible support for an idea that can’t be ignored by the establishment or the media.

Koreans have learned a few tricks during these endless protests and by now they seem to have mastered the art of non-violent protest.

 

The people of the country where I grew up on the other hand have rarely felt the need to resort to mass protest. Perhaps because there is more trust in the democratic institutions and a distrust of popular mass movements. Think of marches in the UK and you immediately think of the BNP, or Northern Ireland, or perhaps the “bad old days” when strikes and marches were more common.

Perhaps it is also because when British people have marched, they have rarely been successful. In 2003 as many as 2 million people marched as part of the “stop the war coalition”. Unfortunately it didn’t stop the war.

Why not? In the heady days of 1989, when the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, 500,000 people was considered a huge protest, enough to topple a government. How is it that these days you can put 4 times that number on the streets to no effect?

Today it is not enough to oppose something. As the film maker Adam Curtis said in the documentary HyperNormalisation, the protests in Egypt's Tahrir Square or America's wall Street lacked a coherent narrative for what should be done instead.

Occupy Wall Street fizzled out because of a lack of any clear demands. The Egyptian Revolution created a power vacuum which was filled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Just a year later, the protestors were left in the embarrassing position of begging the army to remove the new government.

Even if the movement has an agenda, it can become hijacked by extremists, or the message can fail to reach the masses because of the way it is portrayed in the press. Whatever the aims and motives of the Yellow vest movement in France, negative press coverage and images of violence have resulted in the movement's support increasingly narrowing to an extreme segment of society.

A violent revolution can not succeed unless its aims are to replace one violent regime with another. One of the goals of a successful protest must be to win support from ordinary people, and to make sure that the movement behind it is ready to assume power if the old regime is pushed out.

The protests in South Korea employed a number of strategies to do just this, making sure that the presidential elections that followed delivered a victory for a progressive candidate offering real change.

They were peaceful and well organized. 

Although both pro and anti Park rallies happened at the same time, they occurred at different locations. The two groups found out in advance where they were going to be protesting and were careful not to clash. It's not enough to rely on the police to keep things harmonious, organizers have to be proactive in avoiding trouble.

They were efficient and well prepared. 

The protestors used a method called relay protests, where people would agree to stand at a spot for a couple of hours and then switch over with someone else when their shift was done. This allowed them to maintain a presence for days at a time, and for people to fit their work schedule around the protests. A million people on the street for a day can be dismissed; having them there for a week is not easily ignored.

The protests were family friendly. 

Activities included singing and dancing, sharing food and stories. There was street theater and performance art. It was very much like accounts of the CND marches I’ve heard about, with women and children in attendance. The atmosphere was relaxed and positive.

Protestors were a diverse set of ages and backgrounds. 

It was clear that this represented a cross section of the people who would be voting in the next election.

They were clean.

A common criticism of the Women’s march from a few years ago focused on the stacks of protest signs left behind. In contrast the Korean protestors had volunteer cleanup crews who stayed behind to pick up rubbish and even sort the recycling.

They were fun. 

They did a Mexican wave. But as far as I know they didn’t feature any heavy drinking.

They were well reported by the press. 

Think of all the things that can go wrong on a march or a sit in. Now imagine those things on the front page of the Daily Mail or Fox News the next day. Just one slip up gives the reactionary press the ammunition it needs to brand all protestors as part of a dangerous mob.

The Poll tax march in 1990 saw around 200 thousand people marching in London. It was overshadowed by riots which cost nearly a million pounds in today’s money.

Marches against tuition fees in 2010 are best remembered for the masked vandals who damaged the cenotaph. Anti Trump marches and Protests, as well as the clashes in Charlottesville have painted a picture of leftist violence, which can be unfavorably compared to the neat and festive marches of groups like the American Tea Party.

One of the biggest threats is the presence of agent provocateurs. For the sake of argument it doesn’t matter who they are, highest probability would be Far Right elements infiltrating the march and causing trouble. It only takes a spark to cause a fire. In the above marches the message was completely lost in the fallout from the violence.

So what can we learn from this?

For a protest to deliver real change it needs to be peaceful, clean and positive. People today have every right to be angry, but it’s best to leave your hate at home and turn up with nothing but love and solidarity in your heart.

There needs to be a full cross section of society. Women, children and older people should feel safe at the event.

It needs to be well planned. I don’t see anything wrong with having a number of control rooms off site, with volunteers online to monitor developments and relay information between the marshals and police. If you watch the time-lapse videos of the Korean demonstrations it shows wonderful organization. Not directed by the state, or by corporate officers, but decentralized; self-organization by ordinary people.

There should be plenty of volunteer organizers and they should wear body cams to record any incidents of violence or property damage. The more cameras around the better, so no one can rewrite the account of what happened and those looking to ruin the day might think twice about it if they know they are being filmed. Still, people would have to be on the lookout for trouble makers. Look out for anyone wearing a mask or carrying a bag of tools or spray paint.

Ask people to avoid damaging property, even tearing up the hated tabloid newspapers and stuffing them in the bin. If the police turn up to arrest them it can quickly get out of hand.

Ask people not to bring drugs or alcohol. Drunk people don’t make good decisions.

Despite the hot weather, protestors shouldn’t wear sunglasses. It hides a lot of the visual cues which show a person’s emotional state. In a standoff with police or trouble makers it would make things much worse.

I’m sure there are plenty of great websites out there offering good advice for organizing a protest. We don’t need to cover basics like bringing plenty of water and folding stools for children and old people who get tired or sick.

I think the current popular movements boiling to the surface are really exciting, but I admit that many people probably are voting against the status quo instead of for real change. It needs to be something more than a movement against austerity and capitalism. We have to focus on the good things that we have and the fairer and freer society that we can build in future if we put people before profits and take care of our environment.

If those sitting at home see an exciting popular protest, they might very well be drawn in to the movement. How can anyone watch the videos of the Korean protests and not wish they were there to take part?

If they see an angry mob clashing with police then even the existing supporters may start to melt away.