Political dissent in the context of "Public order policing"

⭐ In the context of public order policing, how is the state response to political dissent generally characterized when comparing democratic and authoritarian regimes?

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Political dissent

Political dissent is a dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of a governing body. Expressions of dissent may take forms from vocal disagreement to civil disobedience to the use of violence.

The Constitution of the United States regards non-violent demonstration and disagreement with the government as fundamental American values.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

πŸ‘‰ Political dissent in the context of Public order policing

Protest policing or public order policing is part of a state’s response to political dissent and social movements. Police maintenance of public order during protest is an essential component of liberal democracy, with military response to protest being more common under authoritarian regimes.

Australasian, European, and North American democratic states have all experienced increased surveillance of protest movements and more militarized protest policing since 1995 and through the first decades of the 21st century.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Political dissent in the context of Mass surveillance

Mass surveillance is the intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population in order to monitor that group of citizens. The surveillance is often carried out by local and federal governments or governmental organizations, but it may also be carried out by corporations (either on behalf of governments or at their own initiative). Depending on each nation's laws and judicial systems, the legality of and the permission required to engage in mass surveillance varies. It is the single most indicative distinguishing trait of totalitarian regimes. It is often distinguished from targeted surveillance.

Mass surveillance has often been cited by agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA) as necessary to fight terrorism, prevent crime and social unrest, protect national security, and control the population. At the same time, mass surveillance has equally often been criticized for violating privacy rights, limiting civil and political rights and freedoms, and being illegal under some legal or constitutional systems. Another criticism is that increasing mass surveillance could potentially lead to the development of a surveillance state, an electronic police state, or a totalitarian state wherein civil liberties are infringed or political dissent is undermined by COINTELPRO-like programs.

↑ Return to Menu

Political dissent in the context of Military response to protest

Military response to protest is the intervention of a state’s military in mass demonstrations of political dissent.

Protests are sometimes contained by protest policing. When police forces are unable to contain protests, state leaders are likely to call on the military to intervene. Armies ordered to intervene in domestic protests may obey orders, refuse to intervene, or intervene conditionally. Soldiers' training conditions them for violent response, making military intervention in protests more likely to result in civilian casualties than protest policing.

↑ Return to Menu

Political dissent in the context of Political crimes

In criminology, a political crime or political offence is an offence that prejudices the interests of the state or its government. States may criminalise any behaviour perceived as a threat, real or imagined, to the state's survival, including both violent and non-violent opposition. A consequence of such criminalisation may be that a range of human rights, civil rights, and freedoms are curtailed, and conduct which would not normally be considered criminal per se (in other words, that is not antisocial according to those who engage in it) is criminalised at the convenience of the group holding power.

Thus, there may be a question of the morality of a law which simply criminalises ordinary political dissent, even though the majority of those who support the current regime may consider criminalisation of politically motivated behaviour an acceptable response when the offender is driven by more extreme political, ideological, religious or other beliefs.

↑ Return to Menu

Political dissent in the context of Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism refers to a range of attitudes, characterized by skepticism, mistrust or criticism of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism. It is commonly expressed as questioning the value or relevance of intellectual pursuits, including education, philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, history, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human endeavours. Anti-intellectuals may present themselves and be perceived as champions of common folkβ€”populists against political and academic elitismβ€”and tend to see educated people as a status class that dominates political discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people.

Totalitarian governments have, in the past, manipulated and applied anti-intellectualism to repress political dissent. During the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) and the following dictatorship (1939–1975) of Francisco Franco, the reactionary repression of the White Terror (1936–1945) was notably anti-intellectual, with most of the 200,000 civilians killed being the Spanish intelligentsia, the politically active teachers and academics, artists and writers of the deposed Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939). During the Cambodian genocide (1975–1979), the totalitarian regime of Cambodia led by Pol Pot nearly destroyed its entire educated population. During his rule, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin ordered the massacre of intellectuals and officers.

↑ Return to Menu