The crux of democracy is the overlying freedom of choice and existence of an individual and a system of government that is owned and controlled by the majority. The origins of the word democracy are derived from Greek, meaning “the people to rule” or “ruled by the people”. Therefore the simplest implication of the word democracy is the notion of power to the people.
On this basis, the ability of the people to openly express their views and organize protests or demonstrations is a fundamental part of modern society and the democratic principles that underpin effective governance.
As such whether in an election, via a petition or indeed a demonstration, the primary concept is the ability of the people to be heard.
Many of the freedoms expressed today, especially in European countries renowned for democracy, have come as a consequence of the desire and willingness of ordinary people to stand up especially at passages of times when many subjects were taboo, including woman rights and rights of workers.
Many laws and legislative measures have been introduced as a result of “people power”. Once the very people that elect governments come flooding to the streets in great numbers, in any true democracy no legislative power can ignore such a compelling message from its inhabitants.
In the Middle East, where democracy has been a longtime taboo, the ability to stage demonstrations are often forbidden and repressed with great force and where allowed to be formed are severely restricted.
In the Kurdistan Region, after years of repressive rule under a totalitarian regime, a fledgling democracy has taken shape that can serve as a symbol of tolerance in the region. However, while the current form of democracy is a milestone achievement, it is far from perfect with some accusing the ruling parties of curtailing the freedom of expression.
In this regard, it was somewhat unsurprising that the government received a backlash with the passing of the new law around the staging of demonstrations (Regulating Demonstration Bill). Although, the bill was met with resistance by some quarters of parliament particularly the Goran movement, it was essentially passed by the sheer numbers of the KDP and PUK in the assembly.
There has been growing disgruntlement in sections of Kurdish society, seeking greater reform and more transparency in government. Amidst such prevailing skepticism, the exact basis for the new demonstration law that has been passed has become murky and subject to misinterpretation.
For an affective understanding of this new bill, the question of why is a demonstration law is needed and what it is intended to achieve needs to be adequately understood. Any reservation from opposition party’s aside, regardless of the democratic basis of the right of the people to protest and be heard, any democratic principle still needs a framework and a measure of regulation.
This notion of control should not be intended to “prevent” but to regulate, which for example is the case in the UK. The reason is simple – allowing and facilitating the freedom of expression of a group of people, is finely balanced against ensuring and maintaining the daily freedoms of the greater sections of society.
The underlining basis of a demonstration is peaceful protesting. Unfortunately, sentiments can sometimes spill into aggressive and violent behavior, attracting the headlines for the wrong reasons but above all creating danger to the greater community.
Therefore, in the vast majority of Western countries, while protesting is a fundamental right, they do not necessarily have an exclusive hand to act, organize and proceed as they deem fit. For example, under the Human Rights Act in the UK, protestors have a great deal of freedom to protest but under the firm basis of “Non-violent direct actions” which has the clear objective of ensuring that the people can get their message across without the proceedings descending into violence, bloodshed or anti-social behavior. Therefore protests must not harm the person, group or element that is the subject of the protests, or the security forces and rival protestors.
One of the major concerns around the passing of the demonstration law is that it will allow the government to manipulate the bill to prevent demonstrations or restrict protests as a form of self protection. A new requirement means that any demonstrations that are intended to be held must be authorized by the government.
In most Western countries, depending on the nature and extent of the protests, some actions require consent from the authorities but no consent can ever be denied on the mere basis that the authority does not want you to speak out.
The current sentiment towards the Kurdish government is not strictly that a law to control demonstrations is undemocratic or a new phenomenon in a modern society, but owed largely to the distrust felt in sections of Kurdish society towards the ruling parties.
It is this general cynicism that needs to be addressed, with the ruling alliance providing the necessary assurances to its people. In this light, time will tell what demonstrations are held or prevented or how restrictive this bill will become in practice. The grounds for any rejection must be clear and on the basis of safeguarding the greater community, preventing violence or damage to property. The law itself as it stands is not an obstacle to democracy but the danger is the manipulation of this law to suit a particular side.
In most of the major European countries, organized marches by the people need approval and protests can be disbanded or disallowed from been run if they are deemed to incite racial hatred or against the interests of the greater public.
In this light, the Kurdish government must work transparently around the demonstration law and allow external monitors to assess any cases where demonstrations are rejected.
The passing of the bill has already placed the ruling government in a precarious position. Demonstrations against this bill have been held that have ironically already broken the law. It also begs the question of how the government would react if unlawful demonstrations are subsequently carried out.
Such is human nature that spontaneous protests can never be avoided and sometimes gatherings or rallies occur or gather pace depending on the sensitivity of an event or issue without any prior planning or intention.
Any heavy handed responses by the security forces will only backfire, whilst at the same time they cannot be seen to be idle while a law is been violated.
Clearly, the overlying message to the Kurdish government is not that some measures they undertake are necessarily undemocratic but that the people still require assurances and that the region will expand on democratic values and evolve and not contract.
The need for the government to reform and implement a more effective form of democracy is still very much an ongoing objective, in order for the region to grow, prosper and become a showcase for effective lines of communication between the government and the people who select the government to serve them.
Kurdish politicians must be in touch and be seen amongst the ordinary people, in the very quarters where the people go about their day-to-day lives. After all, it is down to the people to express their voice and vote but ultimately down to the politicians to listen and deliver.