To what extent do new social movements represent a challenge to established ways of conducting liberal democratic policies?

He goes on to state that these new movements have become more prominent in the relatively new liberal democracies of  the old eastern block and south African and South American states. However other movements outside of liberal democracy (particularly religious extremism) also exist and it is these movements which I feel have presented the greatest challenge to the liberal democracies which we live in.

These movements have also gained sympathy in established liberal democracies such as the US this is shown through the massive popularity of Noam Chomsky’s works.

Due to the stagnation of politics after the more idealistic movements of the nineteen sixties and seventies and the early eighties there has been a decrease in voter turnout and an increase in voter alienation (I feel this is demonstrated by the popularity of books which criticize those in power) this is because of a situation wherein people feel that the political system is insufficient in it’s ability to bring about significant change for the benefit of the masses. This is demonstrated by George Bush’s infamous tax cut which has helped the minority upper classes (and primary party donors) more than the majority middle and working classes. Additionally, the way in which the resent president came to power is very dubious (he wasn’t even voted by the people as the president, and various events’s conspired to bring him into power). Moreover, in the UK the privatization of previously state owned companies has resulted in failed companies such as Railtrack. As well as this in the UK the governments policy towards asylum seekers contravenes their human rights and international law; this is possibly because the countries from which the most militant new movements are ones from which many asylum seekers originate. However this is no more acceptable from a liberal democracy because it degrades and disrespects people as humans. This has it seems only demonstrated to the people of the liberal democracies that the supremacy of the people, and their rights is not one of the government’s primary concerns.

This alienation as led to the growth of single issue groups and organizations including:  Amnesty international, and stop the war coalition and has in part been responsible for the increase in sympathy from the populations of some liberal democratic countries (the suicide bomber in the recent tragic events in Istanbul were identified as being Turkish). These groups organize more immediate events which allow people to vent a level of frustration at the democratic process.

        Additionally, M. Moore feels there is a greater need for such groups which can more directly influence governments in an immediate manor. This is derived from the way that he has demonstrated that the US peoples are (according to recent surveys) significantly more liberally left wing in their views and ideals; this is not reflected in the right wing conservative government in power at present. I feel this might be a causal factor in the rise of these new movements; there is a feeling that there is insufficient diversity in the political system and therefore people are turning to other means to get their view across to governments and pressurize them into implementing particular policies. The method has been perceived by those who supported the groups to be ineffectual and so the groups have become more extreme in there methods which has in turn led the liberal governments to remove even more of the liberty of peoples. The reason given for this is that it will protect the majority and prevent the “terrorists” from causing havoc.

        One must note that it was only through the liberal democratic process that other movements have succeeded in their aims. This suggests that more recent movements will only truly succeed if they to engage in the current systems. However, this could be perceived as a possible paradox: the people are alienated and so they turn to fringe groups in order to vent their frustration, the only groups which succeed are those which engage in the current systems, but people don’t vote (due to an alienation with the current system) so the fringe groups find it hard to gain influence in the political system.

        I feel the only way to solve this threat is to increase the political awareness of the voting public so that they may express their views and engage. It is only in this way that new movements will succeed if the most extreme of these groups continue in their militant practices then they will only fail and cause the loss of civil rights and liberty for precisely the people they are trying to help.

        However the groups which do use methods compatible with liberal democracy can succeed in their aims. One such successful group has been the green movement. This has been accomplished through increasing public awareness of the environment through non violent tactics and publicity stunts. In doing this they have been able to aid in the founding of the Kyoto protocol. Additionally, through use of the same tactics they have won a significant level of support from the media and the public, this has allowed them to call successful boycotts on large multinational corporations (such as that against an oil company in recent years: the company was planning to dispose of a drilling platform in an un-environmentally sound way, the oil company later due to adverse publicity decided on a different course of action).

        However not all groups are as successful as this and as a result some turn to more militant action to make a change. Events such as those in Istanbul recently have quite clearly demonstrated this; I feel it is these groups which have and will continue to have to the greatest extent an adverse effect on the ways in which liberal democratic policies are conducted.

This view is not reflected by Moore; he feels that the threat posed by militant extremist groups is relatively minimal and that this threat is merely spun out of proportion by a right wing capitalist media and by governments funded in part by arms companies (which are the prime beneficiaries of conflict; war sells weapons and makes news). Additionally the support for the right is likely to increase during war (bush’s support increased markedly after the invasion of Iraq) as such it seems as though it is in the “liberal democratic” governments of the countries of the west’s best interest if they are to stay in power if they can keep the public in the state they are currently in wherein they are living under the practical illusion of democracy. The actual case is that there is often either little difference twixt the political parties or that the parties which are different are not particularly well structured or organized. The result being that a country has very few significant parties and the difference between them is not easily distinguishable.

Berman feels similarly that many of the more extreme movements have a sound basis in their actions: “The very idea of a pathological movement seems unbelievable. [Because people don’t want to believe] though such movements exist and wreak damage […] the idea that mass movements such as these exist for an understandable reason is most plausible”

He goes on to say that the reason for the existence of such movements is the imperialist actions of western governments (such as the action of the US in Indonesia and later Iraq; wherein many thousands of people suffered at the ands of dictatorships supported by the west). The result of this has been the founding of such groups as Al Queda (who were originally based in Saudi Arabia (just such a dictatorial state which is supported by the west). The actions of these groups has been reported in such a way as to cause the peoples of liberal democracies to view Bin Laden et al as groups intent on world domination, when in practice this is not likely to be the case.

In conclusion, I feel that in general new social movements have not in the main affected the way in which liberal democracies have been conducted, this is because the peoples of these liberal democratic states still have the right to change the governments through the exercising  of their vote. It follows therefore that these people are willing to accept the way in which their rights have been slowly eroded. The greatest irony is that it is the extremist groups which have been campaigning against the inequality they are on the brunt of that have actually ended up in a worse position than they wished for.

I feel the solution to this issue is to increase the level of awareness of the public as regards the international and national actions of governments which might not be in the public’s best interests. Additionally I feel if people were able to realize their true power then they would be able to make a bigger impact upon the governments with which they seem so alienate.

The targets of the groups appear to have been capitalist imperialism and injustice (i.e. the pentagon, and the world trade centre, and more recently the HSBC) these targets are not based in countries which actively educate their citizens in the political and philosophical fields such as France and Germany. I feel this shows that with a greater awareness of differing political views people will be more tolerant. The governments of some western nations are planning to introduce such lessons. One might hope that these are successful in order to counter the current situation wherein alienation has led to the support of new movements and it is ignorance of the individuals power which has led to the alienation.