The decision handed down by Gov. Jay Nixon declaring the State of Missouri to be in a State of Emergency has created a tension of fear and confusion. It is important for us as members of the St. Louis community to understand what this decision means for us in the upcoming weeks.
All of the government agencies responsible for law enforcement have been brought under a chain of command. This allows the governor to call for the National Guard to respond to the situation. This is intended to insure that the response to the situation is consistent. As such, the goal of having a State of Emergency is to create a system, in response to a situation, that will be consistent, coordinated, immediate and efficient. Calling it a State of Emergency acknowledges that an extreme situation has occurred and some civil rights protected by the Bill of Rights can be infringed upon in order to preserve the community. The rights that are most directly infringed upon will be the right to freedom of speech and right to assemble.
However, this does not restrict rights that do not directly limit law enforcement’s response to a situation, for example, the right to due process and habeas corpus. Another important aspect of this situation: the National Guard is often deployed in States of Emergency, but they will be called upon to serve and take orders from a civilian command, such as the St. Louis County Police Department Chief of Police.
However, under a situation of martial law, the Guard would be ordered by military command. Groups and people have the right to assemble and conduct free speech; however the difference under this current status quo is that the usual standard to judge a “safe” protest or assembly will be scrutinized under a much tougher standard.
The Governor’s intention in declaring the State of Emergency is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have means to respond in an effective and responsible manner. However, the Governor should not have given the St. Louis County Police Department the responsibility of command. The nature of a State of Emergency allows for a greater wielding of power in fewer sets of hands, in hopes of a more direct and effective response. This does not mean, as such, that the power will be used in a responsible manner, as this centralizing of power creates the possibility for a greater abuse of power.
Over the last 100 days, there has been a wide range of reactions and opinions formed about the events and the supposed extreme situation.
What I have found essential is the simple fact that loss of life cannot be quantified or justified. It should shake us as a community that the killing of anyone, any person, can be brushed aside so easily.
The political and social narratives given for the justification of power relationship maintenance are rooted in very personal emotions of fear. St. Louis in particular contains a history of urban policy decisions made for the gratification of fear. While the discussion on policy and structures can become lost in abstraction, it must be understood that there are always personal actions and reactions within these frameworks of reality.
We are always balancing complicity and resistance, in small and large ways. Our level of engagement depends on our level of consciousness, which then informs our participation.
Now, as a SLU community, we are faced with an important decision: fear or love. Fear will drive us deeper into self-negating circles that deem interests as only ranging to matters of security and status quo. Love will open and challenge us into a manner of living that constantly seeks solidarity and relational systems of community that declare compassion as the framework of our reality.
In the next few days, by what will we allow the SLU community to be defined: fear and security that only quantifies and compartmentalize humanity, or love and compassion that seeks a communal system of solidarity and inclusivity?
