"No solution to dilemmas"

Sirs—The tears shed by Peter Quennell in his original article on demonstrators (Salient 2) over the mis-reporting, misrepresenting and taking out of context of their case, turn out to have been crocodile ones. In a second article. "Squint at Inner Workings" (Salient 4) he Claims to reply to my argu-ments in favour of demonstrations (Salient 3). Alas, I find difficulty in recognising some of the statements Mr. Quennell attributes to me; still more in seeing the point of some of his "replies." I invite readers to compare my letter with Mr. Quennell's "summary" of it for themselves; space permits me only a few comments here. Below are two of my arguments as reported by Mr. Quennell, with appropriate comments.

"Our opponents will heed no logic, therefore we will not give them any." How Mr. Quennell obtained this view from my letter I am at a loss to discover. My point was that logic and reason often need to be accompanied by politically-effective pressure tactics. "An illogical defence of the illogical?" Hardly.

Demonstrators "being misread, rewritten and generally taken out of context . . . results from a newspaper conspiracy." I am aghast! The thought that I may have credited the New Zealand press with sufficient ability run a successful conspiracy appalls me. Certainly no such claim was made in my letter. To state that prejudice and bad journalism are the way of life of our press is surely rather different from accusing them of conspiracy?

Similarly with Mr. Quennell's "replies" to my five points:

(1) I "presume rather much in saying that issues are what the demonstrators inflict upon the public." In the absence of supporting argument or evidence from Mr. Quennell, I shall presume once more—I consider that issues are indeed at the core of any demonstration, and challenge Mr. Quennell to prove otherwise. Assuming, that is, that he intended this point to be serious.

(2) "Hardheaded politicians just do not stay afloat in New Zealand!" Clearly Mr. Quennell and I differ on the mean-ing of "hardheaded;" also over the nature of New Zealand political response. Terminological confusion, how-ever, does not disprove my point, that with regard to op-position groups. New Zealand politicians heed those who speak from a position of established strength.

(3) What deters Governments is "the whole iceberg of opposition, not the out-standing tip of demonstrators." I agree, and made this point in my article when I pointed out that "a large body of committed (demon-strating) supporters . . . indicates the existence of a considerably larger body of actual supporters." It is my firm contention, however, that the tip remains the key to the iceberg, so far as the observer is concerned. From the strength of his visible opposition the politician estimates the total numbers of dissidents in the community.

(4) Winning over an Opposition party is "a tactical error of the most remarkable and devastating innocence." Mr. Quennell perhaps believes that Governments will cheer-fully about-face and join forces with protesters whose views they oppose. Or that, on an issue as fundamental as Vietnam. Government can be weaned from an entrenched position to compromise with a movement which poses no electoral threat. His faith is touching; his sense of political strategy unimpres-sive. Let us realise that any issue which becomes a major national concern through the action of effective protest groups will be taken up in some way by political parties in search of vote-catching causes. This being so. are the protesters to ignore or discourage parties which offer support, or are they to take advantage of the considerable advantages of alliance with a political party:

•Spokesmen with access to mass media.

•The rallying in electoral terms of a large body of otherwise uninterested people who will support the party if not the specific cause (a substantial propor-tion of Mr. Quennell's unreachable 90 per cent).

•The "legitimising" of ones cause.

•A voice in a Parliament which despite erosion of its power, remains an effective propaganda medium.

•The confronting of the electorate with the issue by an unimpeachably "respectable, "responsible," and non amateur body.

•And, of course, the real possibility of electoral victory and consequent Government sympathy.

To outweigh these considerations Mr. Quennell offers only the danger of a hardening of an already-intractable Government viewpoint.

(5) Mr. Quennell offers no rebuttal of my remarks on moral commitment.

A major point of my article was that the effectiveness and strength of a protest movement are generally judged by its public appearances and audibility. Mr. Quennell's opening provides a case in point. To recall: "If the Vietnam protest movement really is demoralised — as the present lack of noise strongly implies . . ." Thus Mr. Quennell, in common with many other people, tends to consider a silent movement an ineffective one. Protest must be made publicly -— and must remain publicly visible to convince the Quennells and others that it retains its vigour.

Apart from his sadly-misdirected attempts to rubbish me. Mr. Quennell makes some interesting new points, with which I wish to deal briefly. Firstly, he outlines very well the dilemmas faced by any movement of protest which wishes to have an effective voice and hence must seek to unite under its banner widely-divergent groups. To avoid fragmentation into splinter groups, the movement must constantly engage in a process of compromise among its membership. That such compromise is often imperfect, and that many conflicts are never really satisfactorily resolved, means neither that the protesters are unaware of the problems, nor that the cause must be abandoned. Mr. Quennell offers no solution to the dilemmas; the protesters are at least trying, and not without success. Having re-cognised the extreme com-plexity of the issues involved, Mr. Quennell should know better than to demand clear-cut solutions.

Secondly. Mr Quennell returns to the problems of demonstrations: repetitiveness, counter - militancy, loss of "moderate support." and so on. He adds also some value-judgements of his own — de-monstrations "substitute for debate," attract would-be "martyrs," "deaden members' critical faculties." With regard to the genuine problems, these are factors to which demonstrators are well-aware and with which they do seek to deal. I cannot agree that they are sufficient cause for abandoning the demon-stration as a tactic. Concern-ing the value-judgments, Mr. Quennell and I must agree to differ. I do not consider demonstrators intellectually bankrupt nor brainwashed; I do not find that demonstrations destroy other forms of dissent, nor that demonstrators fail genuinely to seek out and use alternative channels of protest: and, not surprisingly, I reject Mr. Quennell's analysis of the demonstrators' motives and frame of mind. The demonstrator syndrome" of "despondent self-pity and isolation from reality" may be fine ringing phrases, but they serve merely to illustrate Mr. Quennell's very evident isolation from the realities of poltical protest.

Thirdly, Mr. Quennell. from some mysterious and dusty hat. produces the remarkable notion that in the Vietnam debate "the Government is primarily the Chairman." and that the demonstrators are Ignoring the rules of debate. If the Government is indeed Chairman, it is making a travesty of the rules of debate as I understand them by be-ing openly, continuously and belligerently partisan. Alternatively, Mr. Quennell's analysis may be wrong. Take your pick.

Finally, may I sincerely, if briefly, thank Mr. Quennell for his attempt to provide constructive suggestions at the end of his article. As already indicated. I am doubtful of the wisdom of "softening up" and of "discarding Opposition party support." but can agree with the claim that organisation, public relations, and propaganda techniques are all open to improvement.

The Vietnam protest movement certainly is not unaware of this, nor inactive. Perhaps Mr. Quennell would care to offer us his talents as a "morally neutral influencer of opinion?" We would be happy to provide him with a worthwhile cause.

—Geoff Bertram.