16 May 2012
| Striking a Paradox |
| February 2012 |
|
By Hassan Abbas Before discussing the relationship between the Dignity Strike and citizenship, let us define the term. A strike is a supreme form of peaceful protest. It is realised by abstaining from fulfilling a duty or right for a definite or indefinite period of time, so it has four requisite elements: agreement, demands, abstinence from duty, and time period. A strike might take different forms, with the importance of each element varying according to the form and the rules and legislations where it takes place. However, regardless of these differences, a strike's legitimacy is complete when it aims to pressure the concerned authorities. A general strike, of which the Dignity Strike is an example, puts pressure on the state, whether on governmental institutions directly or through the larger society which suffers from services being shut down. This suffering creates a legal and moral paradox which has always triggered a debate regarding the right to strike among civil and human rights activists. Since a strike might negatively affect groups of people that have nothing to do with the reasons behind it, is it acceptable to approve a right which makes people suffer? The answer lies in the principles of citizenship, such as participation, solidarity, and civil responsibility. According to the first principle, it is the citizen's duty to practise solidarity with people treated unjustly to help them earn their rights. According to the second, strikers have to provide for the needs of the other citizens and ease the strike's impact on them. Striking is a right that cannot be taken away from citizens, and protecting their interests is a duty which has to be fulfilled by strikers. This conflict between rights and duties shows the importance of striking as a supreme form of peaceful protest which citizenship calls for and defends. The Dignity Strike fulfils all these elements, in theory at least - which gives it legitimacy. More significantly, this strike gets its legitimacy from its quest to pressure the country's authority and to frame itself as a peaceful act which rejects all forms of militarisation. This means that this strike wants to stick to acts legitimated by citizenship, and therefore is a real act of citizenship. This characteristic was confirmed in many areas, especially those where the strikers or their leaders insisted that citizens' needs should be taken care of in one way or another. However, it has to be said that in some areas, some acts were reported that made this strike appear differently from what was intended. We have heard about imposing the strike by force, punishing those who refused to join it, and other similar things. This news stirs grief and condemnation. However, we must somehow understand these practices. As I said before, the strike is the fruit of citizenship. This means it is not fully legitimate unless it takes place in a society where there is 100 percent citizenship, including a political and legal relationship between the state and the citizen. Because citizenship means participation and civil relations among citizens themselves, we cannot sue an illiterate person for being ignorant of the rules of writing if we did not provide him with a way to learn how to read and write. The Dignity Strike is a pure act of citizenship. Its undertaking by itself constitutes an important achievement of society. But some violations that accompanied it make us work harder to highlight the principles and culture of citizenship in society, because citizenship is our only guarantee of living in a stable society where people are equals under law in terms of rights and duties.
Hassan Abbas is a researcher at the French Near East Institute. |
16 May 2012
| ||||
