Corrigé : riots

Even if each riot is different, there is always something that doesn't change : a riot is divided in both sides. On the one hand there are the rioters, and on the second hand there are the police and the government. That's what happened in London's riots : for several days, the police fought against the violence of the looters. But both sides made mistakes, and in this final part I'm going to analyse what the rioters should better do in these riots.

Like we've seen in the second part, one of the major problem of that riot was that it not only included rioters with an opinion to defend, it also included people with bad intentions. And as a result of it, the government didn't listen the youth and the rioters in general. So what would be great to do in order to be heard, like the young activist explains in the video "experts cite underlying causes for UK riots", is to deliver a real message, a good image of who are really the rioters. Not only an image of young people without any important things to do but destroying the city, but an image of young and mature people, who know what they want for their future. Giving that kind of image to the government would be a better way to be listen, and a relation between both parts would be possible.

Another big problem that we can observe in every riot and especially in London's riots is that there were any real leader. Everything started at the death of a young black boy in London, like it is clearly explains by the reporter in the video " The year of dissent ". Also, in the article " Understanding Why People Riot", the psychologist says that "It  usually takes an incident to get a riot started, such as an accident or the police attacking or killing an innocent bystander.". It means that the reason of the riot was really present, but no one was really here to lead it. If a leader or even a group of leader would be present from the beginning of the riots to the end, they would probably organize the struggle and it would be better in different areas : they would have less loses of humans (rioters or policemen), they would also have less destructions of buildings and shops and many innocents would be saved. So, the two big issues that made the protests fail is that many people with any real motivation but only looting joined the fight, and a lack of leadership from the rioters.

As a conclusion, we can assert that a riot could be a good way to be listen and to make things change, only if it is correctly organized from the reasons of the fight to the people who fight. I believe that the violence is not the best way to be heard ; there are many others forms of couter power that aren't using violence and that are very good to fight against an authority.

Finally, we may wonder how the situation between the government and the youth in London today would be if, instead of using violence, the citizens used non-violent protests.

...