Interesting to see the interplay between power and civil disobedience.

It was naive to expect reddirt to bow down (which is why many thought the protest was pointless), but still the right thing to continue the protests.

What it does is, it forces the power to show face, and it creates a dilemma. Do they

1. let the protest continue? That’s an option, if the protest can be ignored. If the protest is too much of an obstruction, this is not an option.
2. give in to the demands? Clearly the worst option, else there wouldn’t be any protest
3. use force to remove the protest? A good option if enough people don’t care, the best option if people even condone the use of force.

Maybe you already noticed, I’m talking about something else, something bigger.

(1) Is why regular demonstrations (in themselves) have little effect; they can be ignored. They must be a stepping stone to further escalation, else you get statements like “this one will pass as well”. The people protesting must be committed and follow through.

(2) Must be won in battle. There will be no gifts. It has to be the least painful option for the authorities, and remember it was their most painful option at the beginning.

(3) Very much depends on solidarity. With which side does civil society solidarize itself? Does it favor the force-applying authorities, because they remove an annoying obstruction to business as usual? Are the protesters the good guys, because they are fighting for a just cause and a better future?

Neutrality on this stance indirectly supports the stronger part, usually the authorities (which are in a position to use force). Using force has no real downsides (oversimplified), unless society heavily condemns it. By ‘condemning,’ I mean supporting the protests, ideally through participation.

Maybe after experiencing this with your once-favorite social media provider, you can see the next climate protest / civil disobedience with different eyes.