Whinicles: Different ways to articulate disapprovals and political sentiments

From the Publisher's Desk By Mar-Vic Cagurangan

Activists representing the Marianas for Palestine, Prutehi Guahan and Commonwealth670 burst in on a public hearing at Crowne Plaza on Saipan on June 23, holding protest signs and chanting “No Build-up! No War!” and “Free, Free, Palestine!” while the Department of Defense was collecting public input on the proposed military training plans for Tinian.

They have every right to stage a protest, of course; it’s guaranteed and protected under the First Amendment.

But not everyone is a fan of disruptive displays of outrage, hence the subsequent social media trolls. “Wasting oxygen,” one Facebook commenter said of the Saipan demonstrators. “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” reads another comment. “ICE, should you look into these terrorist supporters?” reads yet another post.

One commenter suggested a priority reset: “We have more pressing issues that need to be addressed like protecting minors from sexual abuse and solving the meth epidemic on Guam.”

We are in a topsy-turvy period in history, which sees the rise of public protests in the global landscape. These actions sometimes include aggressive disruptions, confrontational stunts, violent resistance and public riots.

Too often we wonder—if not denounce—what may seem to us as desperation or an irrational cry for attention. Why, we ask, would people choose such belligerent forms of protest when there are more conventional platforms, such as petitions, public hearings, and peaceful demonstrations?

The Conversation, a network of media outlets, has published new research that seeks to explain the hostile option.

“Contrary to popular belief, people do not only turn to confrontational protest because they are desperate

or lack political alternatives,” the Conversation said in a report published on May 20.

 Its surveys of 3,833 people in Germany, Turkey and the UK found that people choose confrontational action when they believe it is effective and legitimate for achieving their group’s political goals.

“That said, in some protests, confrontational tactics may emerge spontaneously as a self-defense, driven by immediate threats. But it is not simply an emotional outburst or a last resort: it can be a strategic choice.

"This challenges a widely discussed idea in social and political psychology called the nothing-to-lose hypothesis. According to this view, people are driven to confrontational protest when they see non-confrontational action (such as voting, petitioning or authorized marches) as ineffective. This is often because they have little political trust or are oppressed. Our studies ultimately tested this hypothesis.

“We found that most people rated non-confrontational actions as more effective than confrontational ones. But they still saw confrontational tactics as worthwhile if they also seemed effective and justifiable. Interestingly, we discovered that low political trust – a lack of belief that the political system works fairly – did not predict confrontational protest. In fact, it was only weakly linked to perceived effectiveness and legitimacy of such tactics.

“While previous theories suggested that people with nothing to lose would be the ones most drawn to radical action, our findings paint a more complex picture. People don’t necessarily need to lose all faith in the political system before considering disruptive protest. Rather, they judge whether a specific tactic will advance their cause and align with their collective moral values,” the report states.

Guam and the CNMI have not reached this level of rage and extremism, but local activists are beginning to turn to "whinism." They whine when the military fails to consult the civilian community on defense projects, and they whine when the military gives us too much homework to do.

Following last month's release of the revised DEIS for the CNMI Military Joint Training on Tinian and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for the Mariana Islands Training and Testing, the activist groups issued a joint statement. “As military colonies of the United States, our communities are overwhelmed by formal comment periods for military actions that occur simultaneously with the constant use of our lands and waters for war training and testing.” 

The DEIS for the Tinian program has been revised to incorporate public input, which includes 30,000 comments received during the 2015 commenting period.

On Guam, we’ve also seen how effective public hearings can be as the DOD eventually cut the number of Marines to be relocated to the island from 9,000 to 5,000 as a result of our input.

Unfortunately, as a colony, Guam lacks the power to change its fate as the tip of the military spear. But we have the power to influence the military’s decision-making through public participation. We must not squander this power, no matter how limited it may be.

Subscribe to

our digitqal

monthly edition