When you hear about protests out there, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Do you not regard it as just social turmoil, and put it aside thinking that it is not associated with you? Furthermore, when it comes to a judgment of protest, what is your own criterion? Don’t you define some demonstrations as wrong acts simply when a protest is outside the law or different from your political stance? As such, it is fair to say that it is right to judge the demonstration based on the legitimacy of the law-abiding country that we live in. Yet, sometimes seemingly wrong protests turn out to be in circumstances beyond control or promote democracy. So, before judging it, we need to see such an event in context. We, INDIGO, now are going to look into some cases in context that are illegal, yet democratic, via the recent Sewol ferry protest.

Events which are illegal, yet promote democracy:
  On March 1, 1919, there was a historical movement calling for independence from Japanese colonial rule. Many Koreans gathered in a square to cry out and chant for the independence of Korea. It was, ironically, an illegal action. At that time since we were under the rule of Japan, Korea had to follow Japan’s law. Although it was illegal, it is considered a major breakthrough in Korea history. Another incident occurred on May 18, the Gwangju Democratic Movement. It was so violent that 200 people died and more than 4,300 people were wounded. Despite this atrocity, we see this as a critical chance for progress of Korea’s democracy. The events of 5.18 showed the public’s will for democracy by disclosing the brutality of a military dictatorship that led to diminish the power of it. Moreover, it later affected other countries’ popular movements, such as in the Philippines, Taiwan, China, and Vietnam. Comparing the 1970s democratic movement that was mostly formed in the center of intellectual thought, it can be seen that the 5.18 Movement garnered people participation in demonstration and actively promoted popular social and political movements. 
  As you can see the two cases above, a protest’s legitimacy and violence does not perfectly tell its character of democracy. There were some cases that seemed illegal at that time, but later turned out to be critical actions to change the wrong situations. For example, civil disobedience is the refusal by ordinary people in a country to obey certain laws in an effort of protest. People intentionally take this action to tell the people in power of the injustice. For example, in 1955, a city in America, Montgomery, tried to ban African-Americans from getting on buses run by the city. Subsequently, a black woman in a bus didn’t give up her seat to a white passenger and so got arrested. To tear down racial barriers, Martin Luther King Jr. organized non-violent protests. Black protesters took buses reserved for whites only and had meals in all-white restaurants. With protests like this, we don’t condemn them even if it was banned behavior. There were illegal actions; however, the protest contained great meaning. So, the standard of being a legal or illegal protest cannot be the moral standard. Rather, it is more important what actions for democracy and whether people in protest can take responsibility or not. 

Recent Sewol ferry protest’s fact & context 

A fact (that mess media says)?
  Many news reported that a “recent Sewol ferry protest” was “a violent movement” and that demonstrators had clashed with police leaving many of the bereaved, citizens, and police wounded with police buses damage. They keep showing brutal pictures of it.    

Real Context
  On April 4, more than 5milion protesters gathered in a public square at 7 to commemorate the first-year anniversary of the ferry disaster. In a critical mood against government policy, and because of the meaning behind the first-year anniversary, the atmosphere was quite solemn and reverent. Protesters made their way to Gwanghwamun Plaza to burn incense only to find a three-fold wall of police cars, so they were denied the ability to commemorate the tragedy in that place. Blocking moving was enough to make public outrage, however, if police had just made police lines and allowed them to move in lines, the protest could have been done in order. More troubling is the fact that after that, some demonstrators and bereaved family members were stuck in a wall of surrounding police cars for 2 nights and 3 days. They could not go to toilet, and people outside tried to give some meals to them but police blocked their efforts and only allowed them to go out one by one to dismiss. So, to save them, angry citizens had to resist the police.

  Since police extremely suppressed protesters, the demonstration turned into a bigger clash. In this situation, if citizens surrendered themselves to the pressure of violent police, we can hardly say that they are democratic citizens that enjoy the right to freedom of assembly and association. Some might say that it is true that protesters hit and cracked the police buses fighting against police; but, the fact excluded from the context can distort the event. The problem lies in that the police first regarded the protest as just a social turmoil and used excessive force with walls of police cars. To exacerbate this, the news agencies only focused on protesters’ violent action. In reality, demonstrators’ human rights were infringed. So, we have to see it in context. For instance, Japanese politicians call An Jung-geun “a murderer” because he Killed Ito Hirobumi. But, before naming him “a murderer,” people need to know Ito’s malicious behaviors in Korea. An Jung-geun shot a gun not for his personal rancor, but in order to resist Japanese invasion.

  Looking into such situations, there could be a democratic purpose even if any protest itself looks violent and/or illegal. We, INDIGO, are not saying that only violent protests are effective and in excellent form. In truth, it is fair to say that non-violent demonstrations are effective and offer a high chance to succeed in their goal. However, before judging it by violence or legitimacy, we need to see what makes the protest excessive by reading the underlying meaning of the demonstration. Then, for better communication we have to think what method is most effective in order to organize and make the public understand and agree as a whole more.