Student protests: stand up by sitting down

In the aftermath of the student protests, the finger-pointing in the media has been firing on full cylinders. Personally, I think the real culprit to blame is poor PR, and a distinct lack of imagination.

When ever you try and arrange a mass protest, you know that there will be a tiny minority of people who will attend to cause trouble. We also know that when those people start trouble, the media will be on hand to tar your cause with the trouble-makers brush. In order to have any chance of responsible, non-violvent student voices pervading the media, there therefore needs to be a little careful thought. When organising a national protest, bringing thousands of angry people together, there is a responsibility to consider people's safety and mitigate against potential risks. It is not enough to rely on the police.

Let's look at the example of football in this country. We learned that when we bring thousands of people standing together in a confined space, a few trouble-makers with a dubious interpretation of the throw on rule will invariably reduce the sport to a melting pot for hooligans. When we introduced all-seater stadia around the country, we pretty much eradicated football hooliganism from the modern game. When we took a step back and considered the type of space we were creating, we were able to bring about almost instantaneous change. When we consider that the majority of football fans are in a jovial mood before a match, and not angry and aggrieved like our student protesters, we can see that creativity will be key to prevent trouble-makers stealing the headlines.

Imagination is everything when it comes to making your point to influence the political and PR agenda. Take Gandhi for example. Everything about the man was imbued with symbolic mastery, and reflected the tone and quality of his message. Gandhi knew the influence of the media, he ran his own newspapers, and he knew how to play the media's game, while protecting the integrity of his message. The salt march was a beautifully symbolic means to capture his people's struggle; his robes reflected his humility and austerity; the meetings he conducted, with everyone sitting cross-legged, and everyone having the opportunity to speak in a quiet setting, reflected the authenticity and beautiful simplicity of his non-violent message.

The political and public psyche was tuned in to listen to what the students had to say before the protests. The proposed rise in tuition fees was attacked in most circles, so what would be the PR approach of the students? How could they show they were serious, deserved to have their voices heard, and symbolise the negative impact that the policy change would have on them and generations to come? The resulting campaign was poor and utterly predictable. Thousands of people on the streets, with banners and loudspeakers, necessitating a huge police presence, is not the way forward for a 21st century student (or I would argue, any) protester. The banners are so literal, the chants so predictable. Can you imagine if Gandhi simply stood outside with his followers, with banners saying 'No to the salt tax'?! Everyone has the right to protest, but everyone also has the right to use a little imagination. There are a thousand ways the students could have protested and avoided the violence and negativity. A clue lies in the iconic image of schoolgirls holding hands protecting a vandalised police van amidst the violence. Good on them, though of course the message of that image was 'this is not why we are here' without it really symbolising what their real cause was. Had the student organisers, for example, applied the lessons of football, and asked all protesters to sit down in protest, to reflect how they would be 'weighed down by debt' caused by the raise in tuition fees, 'unable to stand up' on their own two feet in society, then we would be getting somewhere. They could all wear red to represent the debt they would be saddled with following university.

First of all, there is a bit of symbolism and imagination. Most importantly, it would be very easy to disassociate themselves with anyone trying to cause trouble. If they are pictured standing and throwing something, they are not a real student protestor who believes in the cause. If they are wearing red and sitting peacefully, they are. Anyone who tried to imply the bottle throwers or stick jabbers were in some way representing the student cause, would be easily disarmed by the non-violent messaging of the organisers, who could say they organised the sit-in to mitigate public safety concerns and to show up anyone who tried to piggyback the protest for violent causes. The heavy policy presence, horses, riot gear, in the midst of thousands of people sitting in peace, would have been seen as disproportionate, and the media and public sympathy would have every chance of shifting in favour of the protestors. A non-violent national sit in still doesn't have the journey and beauty of a salt march (what a photo opportunity for the media on the sea front!), but it would represent a small important step in the right direction. In a society in which every scandal is clumsily branded something-gate, and the same predictable headlines churn out, there is an opportunity and responsibility for every well-meaning campaigner to use a little imagination, change and challenge the status quo. Gandhi asked us to be the change we wish to see in the world. Media campaigns are valuable opportunities for us to symbolise and visualise the societal changes we are struggling to bring about or prevent. Campaigns are moments to reflect our vision and our values. Lets hope next time, there is a campaign of imagination and vision to allow the students' authentic message to shine through, and transform the hearts of policy-makers, police and the British public.

Simon Cohen

@globaltolerance