Massive protests in the streets have been a tool of popular resistance as old as the cities where they take place. Yet in the US today it is common to hear people say “protests don't work.” Even seasoned veterans of the antiwar movement who have organized some of the largest protests in recent memory will make this declaration. Since 2001 we have seen the number of people mobilizing in the streets rise and fall. Some fatigue is understandable. But is the era of mass protest over? We had better take a closer look at this tactic before passing a blanket judgment.
Our ability to mobilize large numbers of people in the street depends on a number of factors, namely the political mood of the country, current events, and functioning organizations that can lead. Taking stock of these factors, it is not surprising that we are at a momentary low point. The political mood of the country is either enamored by our new Democratic president, or fatigued by years of protest with few tangible rewards. Everyone is reeling from the housing market crash, the bank bailouts, soaring unemployment, deteriorating working conditions, and unabated environment devastation. Many grassroots organizers are second guessing if we have the power or the energy to fight back.
Through all these escalating struggles, the antiwar movement remains a cornerstone of political dissent – as well it should be in a country with troops all over the world. The antiwar movement continues to radicalize young people and provide political organizing experience. Regrettably, the leadership of our major antiwar coalitions have failed to build a united movement. It's been years since the antiwar movement has united to build a demonstration, let alone any other project or campaign requiring more complex and ongoing coordination.
We must not allow the current low level of mobilization to color our attitude toward mass protest. Like any tactic, it requires the context of a strategy in order to be effective. A liberal perspective has frequently dominated the antiwar movement. Under this model mass demonstrations are just another form of lobbying that gives power to the bargaining team – the professional liberals. After we march, there isn't much for us to do but wait until the next election cycle so we can campaign for Democrats and lobby them again as loyal supporters. The last thing the liberals want to do is jeopardize their relationship with liberal Democrats. These politicians are their connection to power. No matter how slow progress seems to come, they will maintain their relations in order to cut a deal. Their bargaining power with politicians comes from their ability to discourage embarrassing acts of protest. This strategic perspective has demoralized rank and
file antiwar protesters.
We cannot pin our hopes on US politicians heeding popular opinion when we are not prepared to act beyond one peaceful march on a Saturday in Washington DC. These protests cannot be expected to veto war plans, overturn injustice, or establish our rights. What protests can do is provide an event around which large numbers of people will be introduced to the movement. The ideas we develop, relationships we build, and organizations we create will give a protest its deeper significance. The mass protest should not be counter-posed with other acts of resistance before or afterward. Rather it is an opportunity to do outreach and generate broad participation in a collective act of protest.
From this radical perspective, mass protests do more than register popular opinion on an issue. They represent the power of the movement. It signals to the ruling class that they cannot tell us what to think anymore, and if they don't change policies, they may soon lose control over what we do. When we work together and share information, it means the mechanisms the ruling class uses to control us are being broken down. Racism, sexism, regional isolation, and indoctrination are all levers of power against us. Nationally coordinated demonstrations must be organized to announce a movement that is resisting and circumventing those levers of power.
Our challenge is no longer to convince people that the wars are wrong, but that we can take action to oppose them. We must build unity among current antiwar forces representing radicals, veterans, pacifists, students, workers, community groups and other organizations. While the groundwork for unity must begin with conversations and small actions at the local level, it must lead toward a national mass protest. A successful event of this sort could represent the rebirth of the antiwar movement and send a clear message to the war-makers in Washington that the people will not consent to unending wars.
A successful movement must place clear demands on policy makers. Progress toward meeting those demands is an important measure of success. But we should also consider other measures, such as changing popular opinion, influencing popular culture, and building institutions that empower people. We must measure these successes ourselves and not wait for the corporate media to admit we have won anything.
The G20 will bring heads of state to Pittsburgh in September to discuss economic policy. With the antiwar movement's National Assembly coincidentally also meeting in Pittsburgh in July, this presents a unique opportunity for a dialog between movements. The struggles against war and corporate pillage must share a symbiotic relationship rooted in an understanding of their interconnectedness. In the current context of the global economic crisis and full assault on government social spending, the G20 may possess the most potential for the next mass protest.
Perhaps the pessimism expressed toward protest organizing reflects a resentment toward relying on the tactic almost out of habit. The antiwar movement has devoted most of its educational efforts toward explaining the middle east and US foreign policy, with relatively scant attention to how popular movements wield power. Perhaps we have mistakenly left this to the domain of leaders. The National Assembly may represent a new organizational formation for the antiwar movement to include its base in forming the strategy. If it succeeds, it will be in part because mass protests bring new people into the movement, and a new political culture to the people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment