Climate activism: “Radical protest always wants and must offend Trump’s hate prophets”

Climate activists clinging to roads have angered motorists for months. After an accident earlier this week, it was initially said that a blockade injured person had not been treated quickly enough. Politicians such as Berlin Mayor Franziska Giffey and Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann then criticized the last generation of activists. Historian Alexander Sedlmaier believes that politicians should be careful not to equate civil disobedience with violence or even extremism.

Mr. Sedlmaier, from a historical perspective: do radical forms of protest, such as the highway blockades that have just been intensively discussed, or museum actions of the last generation of the climate movement, do more harm than wake people up?
Alexander Sedlmaier: That cannot be said so generally. It is not the forms of protest that are radical, but possibly the goals they pursue. Forms of civil disobedience are part of the repertoire of most protest movements. Because unlike mass demonstrations, which integrate many political positions, some activists are also more radical in their thinking, questioning, for example, the idea of ​​economic growth or capitalism itself, rather than just admonishing for minor reforms. Following Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi also spoke of civil resistance as an increase in civil disobedience, as the goal was to overcome a system.

But aren’t large peaceful mass demonstrations the better route to success because they make the population think rather than repel them?
It is difficult, at least from a historical perspective, to generalize which forms of protest work best. Only in retrospect can one see how the views of the protesters in the 1960s and 1970s on environmental protection or women’s rights gradually made their way into the mainstream. Large demonstrations and civil disobedience usually worked together. However, we can see from the Civil Rights Movement in the US that the protests against civil disobedience were extremely successful – legislative changes followed, including the Civil Rights Act, even if they did not overcome racism.

How radical are the current actions in historical comparison?
If you compare the actions of the Last Generation of Extinction Rebellion with the department store fire attacks in Frankfurt in 1968, with the participation of future members of the RAF, or even with the actions of right-wing extremists, they are quite sober. They emphatically distance themselves from violence and do not call for large-scale uprisings. Violence against people is explicitly rejected, but especially against things – apart from minor damage to, for example, photo frames. The protesters followed the incident in Berlin with an apology. Delaying aid would be a shame, but even then it should be discussed whether it’s fair to blame the demonstrators, who claim to have left a rescue lane, on a moral and legal basis. Historically, such attributions of guilt have also been part of delegitimization strategies that social movements have often experienced.

But if the population is so outraged by these forms of protest, isn’t the purpose discredited?
I do not share this premise. Civil disobedience is a minority issue that will and must offend. Turning the majority against you is accepted to make the violence visible on the other side. In this case: You are outraged by a traffic jam, but not by the demise of humanity. But the criticism is certainly discussed, weighed and negotiated internally: does the action violate our values? There will always be actions that do themselves a disservice, but as a historian I can’t judge that yet. Perhaps in 100 years’ time, today’s civil disobedience will be honored with commemorative plaques.

It is not just about the outrage of the citizens. Politicians describe the protests as criminal or even extremist and believe that prison terms are possible. Others are even calling for a ban on the movement.
Accepting punishment is part of civil disobedience as a form of protest. Protesters have often been convicted of so-called dangerous traffic violations or coercion. The case of Klaus Laepple is well known, who in 1966 called for a blockade of the tram tracks against the tariff increases of the Cologne public transport company. In the reasoning of the Federal Court of Justice, whose presiding judge had a Nazi past, the demonstrators were even accused of terrorism. For decades, sit-ins were then criminalized with a broad understanding of violence, for example against the peace movement of the 1970s and 1980s.

Nowadays that is no longer as easy as possible. The German Federal Court of Justice overturned this ruling in 1995. Courts must assess whether a protest is a criminal offence. When sentencing, reasons, goals and attitudes must be taken into account. From the point of view of political theory, it is about the dichotomy between legality and legitimacy: the act may not be in accordance with the law, but it is still legitimate because it is justified by moral principles. Politicians should therefore be careful not to equate civil disobedience with violence or even extremism. If it is claimed that a green RAF is on the doorstep I think that is unlikely, but rather an attempt to discredit the climate protection movement.

In the past, bags of paint flew to politicians. Transports on wheels were blocked and houses occupied. Is it more difficult these days to find the right form of protest because the addressee is basically everywhere?
Public discourse used to follow similar patterns as it does now, but a difficult dynamic is emerging with the involvement of the Greens in government – who are under particular pressure to deliver and with whom many protesters are sympathetic. In addition, there seems to be at least a superficial societal consensus for more climate protection, even if many companies are only greenwashing and the politicians are not doing enough. The concrete contacts are therefore diffuse and have a global effect. That was often easier in the past: take, for example, the protests against the IMF and the World Bank in Berlin in 1988. The organizers wrote: “Injustice has a name and an address.” Political city tours were organized to see Siemens and Jacobs Suchard. Greenpeace immediately stopped those responsible for the environmental scandals. Personally, I think the protest at a car manufacturer like BMW is better conveyed than in a museum.

Now on

So, from a historical perspective, can you give the activists a few tips?
I don’t like old-fashioned advice. But what I can say is: don’t commit yourself too much to one thing, it wears out. Super glue soon loses its appeal. Artistic actions and documentaries that make the problems visible in a creative way have certainly awakened many people in the past. What I miss a bit is a more dynamic intellectual debate. Activists and students today are under a very different time pressure. Even today, scientists and their expertise are an integral part of the protest movement, but it does not always penetrate the breadth. There are certainly approaches. Perhaps a thinker like Karl Marx is missing, who thinks along about ideas for a fairer, more sustainable form of economy and life. But who knows, maybe he or she is writing their work now.

This article was first published on Zeit Online. Watson may have changed headlines and subtitles. Here’s the original.