JULY 8 — At the start of the Mel Gibson movie, “The Patriot”, Benjamin Martin tried to dissuade his sons from fighting against the British in the American Revolutionary War. Despite being called a coward and a man with no sense of patriotism, national pride or justice, he persisted in not granting permission to his oldest son to enlist. When pushed as to his stubborn pacifism and how this may imply that he lacked solid principles, Martin replied: "I am a parent. I haven't got the luxury of principles."

Martin so feared for the lives of his children (even those who were grown up) that he went against the mood of the day...

So Bersih 2.0 is called off the streets and into a stadium. Was it a victory for Barisan Nasional because public places are preserved as sites of control/influence and the rally that was supposed to take place is “displaced” somewhere else? Or was it a victory for Bersih because the protest that was meant to take place still “takes place” regardless of place? Was it a victory for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong because he ensured everyone knew his all-superior place and theirs?

Relevant questions, but one another keeps coming back: Was it necessary to hold the rally in the streets in the first place?

Let’s consider three outcomes should Bersih 2.0 have continued into the streets:

a. Outcome 1 — Bersih supporters meet and march to the palace and there’s minimal or no disruption, no disturbance or violence

b. Outcome 2 — Bersih supporters get involved in minor clashes with other groups, the police use batons, tear gas and water cannons, some assets are destroyed, some limbs wounded but no lives are lost

c. Outcome 3 — Bersih supporters clash heavily with other groups and police, and people (maybe even children) die.

Now here’s the rub: everybody knows that Outcome 1 isn’t going to happen, that Outcome 2 will most likely happen and that the dreaded Outcome 3 CANNOT be meaningfully ruled out. Consider:

• There is no way Perkasa or Umno Youth will simply stand by and let the Bersih supporters through — this would go against the firmly declared reasons for joining the rally in the first place.

• There is no way the police will make it “easy” for Bersih folks to march — this would be against the spirit the federal government has displayed thus far.

• There is no way Bersih supporters will stand down — if so, why bother marching?

• None of the above groups have ANY intention whatsoever to “negotiate peacefully” or hold friendly dialogues with each other on July 9 — if this was so, why wait till they hit the streets?

Add these four together and you get virtually GUARANTEED physical violence on July 9 in the streets of Kuala Lumpur. The level of the violence is a separate matter, but the fact of violence itself is hardly in doubt (especially with the “surprising” discovery of Molotov cocktails, parangs and petrol bombs — in the context of this discussion, the most important thing about this “unearthing” is not who the probable culprit is but how it attests to the certainty of extreme violence happening).

At Bersih 1.0 a few people suffered minor injuries, many eyes had a chemical bath but fortunately no lives were lost. This time things are different. You have two groups getting in the mix, one which defines itself in racial supremacy terms and another which has shown itself more than capable of mob-like actions.

So granted that people might die on July 9, the pertinent question (especially as Bersih 3.0 looms a few years from now) becomes: is it acceptable to risk human lives when there are other options available to make the case for clean elections?

Marching in the streets is a bold reclaiming of public space for a righteous cause, but is that worth risking lives, and are there not other ways to “take back” public space for the people? A multitude in yellow walking for free elections sends a strong message to the government, but is this worth putting this same multitude at risk and is there not another way of speaking to the powers that be?

Even now, more than a few folks are proclaiming how great things will be in the stadium, how the Bersih continues online, etc. All this is grand, because the risk of physical violence is virtually zero. But they also expose the dangerous “under-side” of Bersih in that everybody has conveniently ignored the possibility of a “safer” option in fighting for a cause, in favour of courting extreme violence for the same purpose.

The issue is not whether Bersih threatens the peace or whether another party is trying to frame them (more likely the case, IMO). The issue is if there is more than way to speak out on a cause, why choose an avenue which will beget violence? Why doesn't the prospect of people losing the lives and limbs spur us to seek less violent (or less probably violent) means of expressing a political point?

Finally, to be very clear:

• This is NOT about going against the principles Bersih stands for — it's about asking if the principles of avoiding violence (and potentially preserving life/limb) is just as important.

• This is NOT about “middle-class capitalism” — it's not the disrupted flow of traffic and damaged property which are of main concern, it's the flow of blood and broken heads being highlighted.

• This is NOT about being afraid of the federal government (or Perkasa or whoever) or “backing down” — it's about finding alternative ways to ensure that all parties remain safe.

Like Benjamin Martin, perhaps we should seriously evaluate the courses we take as a community and whether or not certain violent consequences can and should be avoided. Because Martin was ultimately wrong: he did have principles, the chief one being that of love for his kin, a love which seeks to keep them as far away from violence as possible.

* Alwyn Lau reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.