My generation built tree houses on land earmarked for airport expansion and demonstrated in inner cities demanding peace all over the world. I became involved in student movements in a transition period: the spirit of flower power was long gone, the student protest years of the late 1960s were history and protecting the environment had become our key concern. For most of my fellow students, though, the 1980s saw a retreat from active engagement in society and a withdrawal into private life. Those who decided to run for seats in student parliaments found themselves dealing with senates, professors and the bureaucracy as opposed to having time to arrange large-scale demonstrations. Had the establishment convinced us of the fact that we, as students, roughly amounting to 1 percent of the entire population at the time, actually were the future establishment ourselves? I would not go so far, but my generation was different from Daniel Cohn-Bendit's energetic years and form of street protest and activism. My fellow students did not oppose active involvement in society as long as they themselves did not have to do it -- our very own student representative organs were basically regarded as time-wasting institutions reserved for future “adult” politicians; it was a playground of sorts for those who had the idea of one day running for serious elected office.Fast forward and 25 years later it is a comforting thought to witness that not every student has become a standardized, formatted member of society with only one interest: how to obtain the best possible marks. What is disturbing, though, is that some overstep their limits and confuse civil rights with silly, bordering-on-aggressive actions that may bring them short-lived fame but surely no invitation to a national talk show.
Let us now concentrate on the reasoning of the 24-year-old man who decided that taking a spare tennis shoe into the auditorium would be a good idea, unless he took one of his own shoes off, which I could not clearly distinguish while watching the incident: capitalism is to blame, the IMF is to blame, too, and probably anything “Western” or “international” in between. So what? If no one were allowed to state these concerns, we would have reached the age of big brother, only of a worse dimension.
London, too, is prone to anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist attacks every now and then. I remember one such demonstration in 2002 while being stranded in an inner city café as chaos was reigning supreme outside. McDonald's was the target of course -- but did the protesters achieve their goals? Not that I know of. May Day protests have no content except for disturbing ordinary citizens; the İstanbul shoe thrower at least claims to have a valid case -- if only he would have had the courage to raise his hand, ask a question of the panel and then write about the answers! While throwing shoes is less harmful than throwing bombs, it unfortunately shows how it can be done. Attacking fast food outlets in high-security central London may show other would-be aggressors how it can be done in particular in less police-patrolled towns and cities; would-be aggressors often decide to go on killing sprees in rural shopping malls rather than on Fifth Avenue.
When coming to a university campus, politicians and bankers must expect not only having a full house but also groups that might openly oppose their viewpoints. So give them the floor, expect their verbal attacks and try to counter their arguments if they have enough substance. Not pressing charges on behalf of the IMF was of course the only option -- I compare the İstanbul incident with what happened to Lord Mandelson in London some months ago when he was attacked with a sticky, green substance. Showing calm is what distinguishes an experienced from a fair-weather politician.
The shoe thrower neither tarnished Turkey's democratic image abroad nor will large-scale public events now be diverted to other cities or countries. So why have I written about it? Because student protest must be encouraged, albeit in a much more dignified and content-oriented manner. Civil society needs peaceful involvement and what I would refer to as disagreeing in harmony. Picking up the microphone makes more sense than throwing objects at people.
