Animal rights protest and the challenge to deliberative democracy

Abstract Political theorists are increasingly investigating the tensions between the ideal of deliberative democracy and the practices of radical political activists. This paper seeks to contribute to that debate by analysing deliberative democrats' disagreements with one particular group of political protestors – animal rights activists. The paper concentrates on two major areas of contention between these two groups: the idea of politics as a process of levying costs on opponents and the idea of a moral economy of disagreement. We then examine the circumstances of deliberation, suggesting that problems with the use of ideal theory as a standard against which to judge existing practice. The paper concludes by arguing that, despite recent amendments by its proponents, deliberative democracy remains an overly prescriptive approach to democratic politics. Keywords: animal rightsdeliberative democracyprotestmoral disagreementcost-levyingideal theory We would like to thank the following for insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper: Tony Burns, Michael Freeden, Avia Pasternak, Lizzy Pellicano, Matthew Rendall, Andrew Robinson, Federico Varese, Stuart White and the editor and anonymous referees of Economy and Society. We also thank all those who participated in the conferences and workshops at which earlier versions of this paper were delivered. Notes 1. See too Jim Giles, 'Militant animal rights activists trigger British law change', Nature. Available at: <http://news.nature.com//news/2004/040802/430597b.htm>. 2. See, for example, the testimony of John E Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 18/5/04. Available at: <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:98179.wais>. 3. For overviews of the animal rights movement and their ideas, see Francione (1996 Francione, Gary L. 1996. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. [Google Scholar]) and Garner (1998 Garner, Robert. 1998. Political Animals: Animal Protection Politics in Britain and the United States, New York: St Martin's Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 4. Steve Best, 'The son of patriot act and the revenge on democracy'. Available at: <http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Legal/son of_patact.htm>. 5. Quotes from Best (ibid.: 3, 5, emphasis added). 6. The Credo/Guidelines of the Animal Liberation Front. Available at: <http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm> (accessed 6April 2006). 7. Melanie Arnold at <http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/o5flames_mel.html> 8. For a discussion on movement diversity, see Della Porta and Diani (2001: esp. 33–6). 9. For recent examples of such cost-levying practices, see the debate over primate experimentation labs at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, described at <http://www.typead.com/trackback/463789> and Payne (2004 Payne , Stewart ( 2004 ) 'Animal rights protest to target Oxford lab' , Daily Telegraph 22 March . [Google Scholar]). See also the John E. Lewis testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee cited in note 2. 10. Which is not to suggest that all groups who turn to 'disruptive' tactics do so because they suffer from the consequences of significant political inequalities. 11. Animal Liberation Front, FAQs. Available at: <www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ARActiv.htm>. See, too, the discussion in Gillan (2002 Gillan , Tony (ed.) ( 2002 ) Animal Experimentation: Good or Bad? , London : Hodder Murray . [Google Scholar]). 12. For an excellent overview of this tendency, see Owen (2005 Owen Ed ( 2005 ) 'The dangers of cuddly extremism' , New Statesman 12 September: 20–1 . [Google Scholar]). 13. It is important to understand that this is a question of justification, not motivation. Nobody is arguing that protestors should be motivated to promote future deliberation when they engage in protest action, but for deliberative democrats this is the line of justification that is open to them for doing so. 14. See, for example, Patterson (2002 Patterson, Charles. 2002. Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, New York: Lantern Books. [Google Scholar]) and Davis (2004 Davis, Karen. 2004. 'A tale of two holocausts'. Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, 11: 1–20. [Google Scholar]). Although the word 'holocaust' has etymological roots in the immolation of sacrificial animals, the parallels being drawn in this literature are to the mass murder of human beings. 15. Available at: <http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930051999/qid%3D1115907541/202-9437706-4073424>. 16. Such a view has been crucial to political activists of many different kinds for generations. As Martin Luther King observed 'you are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue' (King 1963 King , Martin Luther ( 1963 ) Letter from Birmingham Jail . Available at: < http://www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html >. [Google Scholar]). Of all the deliberative democrats, it is again Jurgen Habermas who comes closet to endorsing this strategy. Habermas is still, however, a little unclear as to whether such an approach is acceptable in 'ideal' circumstances as well as 'non-ideal' ones. In considering Habermas' position it is vital to recognize his crucial distinction between acceptable forms of politics for the informal public sphere, where dramatization and disruption are acceptable, and for the formal democratic sphere, where they generally are not. It is also important to recognize that, despite this distinction, Habermas does always retain room for political 'negotiation' and bargaining, even in the ideal, as long as the conditions of bargaining are fair. Such a view clearly places Habermas much closer to the position of the activists than most Anglo-American political philosophers, although the dispositional demands of his discursive democracy may still present problems to many actual activists. For a close discussion of this theme, see Chambers (1995 Chambers, Simone. 1995. "'Discourse and democratic practices'". In The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Edited by: White, S. K. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: esp. 247).