Understand and dissolve

Lesson learned from police violence in the US

The death of African-American George Floyd by police in Minneapolis has sparked protests in the United States that have been compared to African-American civil rights protests in the 1960s. Large-scale and often violent manifestations in the United States itself and in other countries, in fact, have become an imposed narrative.

Regardless of any connection with this event, the observer should formulate his moral and pragmatic attitude towards the protests in the United States, which often included looting and looting. The viewer is forced to choose:

he is against racism and is ready to allow looting, or he categorically does not accept violence, but then he will be accused of criminal indifference and of the same racism.

The very posing of the question puts the respondent in a vulnerable position. It is probably best to just remain silent and wait, wait for the moment when the issue loses its urgency.

Under these conditions, the power is in the hands of the people who ask these rhetorical questions. Therefore, it is extremely important to direct the discussion yourself. For those who are outside the United States and are not directly involved in the events of Floyd's death, the institutional view will be the most correct. The commentator uses a particular case as an occasion for reflection on the whole system. What impact will Floyd's death have on the US, and can the rest of the world learn from it?

First, observers often ignore the extent to which events in the United States have an impact on the world. Anti-racist protests have already led to the destruction of monuments to slave owner Edward Colston in the UK and King Leopold II of Belgium in Antwerp. Most likely, no events in the United Kingdom itself or in Belgium would be sufficient to provoke these symbolic gestures. The United States continues to serve as a benchmark for the entire Western world.

The extent of this influence is difficult to overestimate. Talk about the rise of China's power should not be misleading - Beijing does not even dream of the level of "soft" power that the United States has yet.

Second, the institutional view presupposes a deliberate disregard for local histories in favor of general conclusions. The media and social networks make this approach unacceptable now: is it possible to replace the pain from the death of a person with arguments about soulless institutions?

This is a false choice. Talking about a system or how to reform it is often the morally correct response to a particular case of injustice, because it prevents those examples from becoming repetitive.

After mass demonstrations due to the death of Floyd, the Minneapolis City Council (the city's legislative branch), consisting of 9 out of 13 people, advocated a radical reform of the city police. In fact, we are talking about disbanding the current police and replacing it with a new law and order system that will guarantee the safety and observance of the rights of all residents of the city. The mayor - the head of the executive branch and the actual head of the city police - has not yet supported this idea. However, the city council has enough votes to deal with a potential mayoral veto.

The situation with the attempted police reform in Minneapolis is indicative of understanding the American experience and its inapplicability to other countries.

The fact is that in the United States there is almost no conflict between representative democracy and government. The federal structure of the United States and the resulting relative freedom of states and cities to solve their own problems is a protective system for the entire state.

Mass protests in the US would never have taken place if they did not have underlying causes. But to come to the surface, reasons need a reason. This is where the response of city governments and individual states is so important. What will allow the US to mask the reason for future protests? Lack of local reasons for performances. How is this possible? Only in a situation where local authorities have the legal resources to act independently.

There are successful precedents: in 2012, the city of Camden in New Jersey disbanded the police because of its corruption and inefficiency, and then re-created it.

After that, crime in the city fell by half, despite the fact that, according to the statistics of violent crime, it was one of the most dangerous cities in the United States. Of course, there is no guarantee that in this city a white cop won't kill a black suspect on arrest, but the chances of any police violence in Camden are now greatly reduced.

The Minneapolis police force is formed by city officials who are elected by residents. Americans do not perceive the police as an alien, incomprehensible, or dangerous institution. It is an integral part of the society itself, which controls it.

Perhaps, in no Western democracy there is such a close connection between society and government institutions. This is a unique trait of the US, coming from the "Founding Fathers". If in Russia there is a stereotype that state power should be effective, then in the United States, power, first of all, should be controlled by citizens. The wonderful paradox of this approach is the high efficiency of power.

The protests in the United States are not even close to the collapse of the American system, but only point to some shortcomings. It can be predicted that working federalism, turnover and accountability of power will help solve the problems of police violence and racism.