Is Protesting Efficient?
The idea of politics can be very perplexing. The government may be in charge, but that doesn’t give them the right to neglect the needs and wants of the citizens in that country. The government is required to listen the people, unfortunately, the voice of the people is not always heard. Situations may be dealt with by civil disobedience, creating petitions, and even hiring lobbyists. These can have positive or negative impacts. On the most part, these are very efficient ways to overcome conflicts and cause movement for change.
Civil disobedience is typically an efficient way to attract attention to a problem. Civil disobedience is generally a person who accepts the consequences of breaking a law that they most likely, find absurd. For example, Viola Desmond, refused to sit in the designated colored area in a theatre in 1946. The situation escalated quickly, and she was then jailed for not listening to the rules of a theatre. This received attention and was advertised in local news paper and decades later a book was published, causing change with racial discrimination. The benefits of civil disobedience is, the situation draws attention, there is an increase in chance of change, and it is a non-violent way of protesting. Despite civil disobedience being efficient, there are cons to it. This way of protesting may result in jail time, causes a tougher resistance towards the issue, and may take some time to make change. In the end change may not occur, but an issue is being approached and it causes awareness. Civil disobedience works on the most part, depending on the situation that needs attention.
Creating petitions is another great way to voice opinions. Petitions are an easy way to show that many people have common feelings towards an issue. Change is typically made because it is a very formal and non-violent way to get a point across. For example, in 2008 HST was introduced and it replaced PST and GST. Many people found it was detrimental and was not placed to benefit the people. It took a few years to revert to PST and GST, but it eventually happened. The cons to petitions are, it may take some time, the issue must be serious, and it can be challenging to find the minimum number of people that share the same feelings to get the problem noticed. For the most part if the issue is serious the government should step in to keep the people happy and to keep a good reputation. Otherwise, the issue will be dismissed and left unresolved.
Lobbyist and pressure groups are very productive. Lobbyist are generally hired to persuade the government to see and make changes according to the people. NAFTA is an example that used pressure groups to enforce free trade. Benefits of using pressure groups is they use a democratic process, they daunt the majority as well as protect individuals and give them a voice to suggest and give their opinions. They are also able to persuade officials. Moreover, they can provide positive solutions, because of the skill and knowledge of being a lobbyist. Lobbyists are usually hired because they have many connections in which they can talk to, to get their points across. Consequently, pressure groups could lead to a higher resistance towards the issues, the breaking of laws may occur, and it is sometimes only beneficial to one side of the issue. Again, pressure groups are very productive but are not always the best choice of making change.
In the end, there are many ways citizens can go about to make change. Civil Disobedience, petitions, and lobbyists are effective ways to voice the need for change. These methods have been used for decades and still work today, but to each benefit there will be a negative effect from protesting. Governments may or may not fix an issue, but they are sure to approach one if it brings enough attention. Governments relatively like to keep people happy and keep a good reputation. If an issue occurs, be sure to know the pros and cons to each protesting method to ensure change.