How to help those in need of help — two leading women activists tell their stories

U.S. activists Rachel LaForest and Madeline Janis share their lessons from the frontlines

No 748 Posted by fw, May 16, 2013

“[Personal stories put] a face to the organizing that happens on the ground. It makes very real the people and the material conditions that they’re going through. It introduces neighbors to each other. It establishes trust. It’s something that really starts to build the power and a collective voice of a community, in a way that facts and figures and being able to put up front statistics just doesn’t get to.”Rachel LaForest

Economic equality advocates Rachel LaForest, executive director of Right to the City, and Madeline Janis, co-founder and national policy director of Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LANNE), discuss with Bill how social action can change both policy and lives. Janis led the fight for a living wage in Los Angeles; LaForest fights for fair and affordable housing across the country.

To watch the original broadcast and access the complete transcript, visit Moyers’ website by clicking on the following link. Or watch the 19-minute embedded version below and read an abridged version of the transcript, featuring added subheadings.

Rachel LaForest and Madeline Janis on Fighting for Fairness, Moyers & Company, May 10, 2013

ABRIDGED TRANSCRIPT

[Introduction by Bill Moyers] – With me are two women from opposite sides of the country who are leading the way.

Madeline Janis is co-founder and national policy director of LAANE, the “Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy.” The organization was created after the L.A. riots of 1992 and has helped lift tens of thousands of people from poverty, creating, quote, “good jobs, thriving communities and a healthy environment.” Madeline Janis led the campaign to pass a living wage ordinance in Los Angeles, she worked with that city’s Community Redevelopment Agency and has advised community organizations and unions all over America.

Here in New York, Rachel LaForest is executive director of the organization, “Right to the City.” Now in 11 states, it is dedicated to the principle that urban dwellers, especially the disenfranchised, have a right to shape and design the place where they live. Rachel LaForest was a student activist, worked in organized labor and at “Jobs with Justice,” where she coordinated a successful effort that raised the New York State minimum wage. Welcome to you both.

To lift people out of poverty start with their real-life concerns, not with abstractions

JANIS – I think that, very, very true that we need story strategy, especially strategy and structure. Those things really speak to the idea of a comprehensive, a smart campaign as well as having a grassroots base. And thinking through smartly what we want to win and all of that. But I would say that I think it’s more than a voice.

You have a struggling housekeeper in a hotel who cleans 25 rooms in a day and can barely make it and barely puts food on the table. The idea of her being able to fight for better working conditions, a union in her hotel, a living wage, that’s going to move her a lot more than just the theory of being able to have a voice in her democracy.

Although, when she finds her voice, it’s just the most incredible, empowering thing. And it’s overpowering when she stands up before a city council, or she stands up before a press and tells her story. So the things come together in a really amazing way.

Personal stories imbue the disenfranchised with motivation and courage

LAFOREST – [Stories] put a face to the organizing that happens on the ground. It makes very real the people and the material conditions that they’re going through. It introduces neighbors to each other. It establishes trust. It’s something that really starts to build the power and a collective voice of a community, in a way that facts and figures and being able to put up front statistics just doesn’t get to.

Right to the City has a national campaign around affordable housing called the Homes For All Campaign. And we could inundate, you know, our constituencies or a broader audience with the facts and figures that show that millions of people are on waiting lists for affordable housing. Millions of Americans are homeless. Millions of people have been foreclosed out of their homes over the last five, six years.

But rather than put out the figures, which I could read over my coffee in the newspaper and say, “This is horrible,” but rather than do just that, we are telling stories about the individuals who are living through these experiences. So, we’ve got Mark Harris in Atlanta who’s connected to an organization, Occupy our Homes Atlanta, which is a manifestation from the Occupy movement. He’s a veteran, has been evicted from his home and is fighting, cannot find affordable housing in the city of Atlanta to be able to stay. And so, telling his story puts an actual human being behind the idea.

Allows people to see him, to see Roline Burgison, who’s another one of our members from Providence, Rhode Island, who is paying 70 percent of her income to rent. So, what are the choices that she has to make around the quality of food that she’s able to put on the food for her children, where she can send her kids to school, if she can send her kids to school. How she’s able to get back and forth to work. Knowing these people, understanding them, is the best way to be able to make those linkages.

Start with stories, follow with organizing, and save facts and figures for decision makers

JANIS – And we have to be really thoughtful and we have to recognize that it’s a long haul. So we have to have, we have to organize. That’s the number one. We have to have that housekeeper, we have to have that veteran. We have to have those people coming together and organizing. But we also have to have the facts and figures and we have to put them out in a way that’s smart and that is right out there, in front of the decision makers.

Involvement in politics is fundamental

JANIS – And, by the way, we have to take control of our government, which means we have to be involved in politics. And then we have to put that all together with our stories and the communication.

How the campaign for a living wage for hotel workers in Long Beach, CA was won

JANIS – So, Long Beach is the second largest city in L.A. County. And we organized for two years in that city to win a living wage for all hotel workers — a living wage and five paid sick days. And we decided that we were going to do something differently there. We were going to do something the same in that the hotel workers themselves are telling their story, they’re organizing. But we decided to organize small businesses. So we went out and we organized 130 small businesses to be part of a “buy local” campaign.

Our polling showed that people recognized that the hotel workers who live in Long Beach — and there’re a lot of them — don’t have enough money to spend in their local stores, because they’re not making enough money. And so, and these hotels have been beneficiaries of big subsidies from the city and the government. And therefore, they should be able to pay a living wage to their workers.

So our argument was — and the small business people made that argument themselves; they were strong advocates — “We want more customers. We want these hotel workers to be able to buy our clothes and our food.” And so we had “buy local” signs everywhere. And then the most incredible thing was we won by 63 percent.

The political side of the living wage campaign

JANIS – And we kept seeing this, something that we thought was wrong. We had to be in an Alice in Wonderland story or something. We would see a Romney for President sign and a pro-Tea Party for Congress and Yes on the Living Wage, all on the same lawn. And that’s because the idea of a living wage for people and their neighbors to be able to spend money in local stores resonated. People were so incredibly energized about winning. And then January 1st 2,000 people and their families got this enormous raise and paid sick days. So then we organized the State of the City for Long Beach. And, you know, we had overflow crowds from every neighborhood.

We called it a State of the City — People’s State of the City. And we had hundreds of people. Every single person running for office, every person currently in office in Long Beach all came. And we were able to articulate this broader agenda, with all of the things that regular people care about. But it came off of the win, the fact that you, people said, “Wow, 63 percent of the people are with us.”

LaForest’s story-based strategy with homeowners facing foreclosure

LAFOREST – So there is actually this brilliant organization that moves and does training for organizations in this country called The Center for Story-Based Strategy. And their premise is…that values are communicated through meaning — not necessarily through facts — but giving meaning to a set of values and being able to tell a story.

And so, we’ve got a national campaign around housing that we use foreclosure, homeowners who are facing foreclosure, homeless families and homeless individuals, renters and public housing residents for the first time really coming together to talk about how each of their stories influences each other and what each of their struggles has, in terms of interconnectedness and how there’s influence. And so, we brought them through training with the Center for Story Based Strategy to really look at what the dominant narrative is around housing in this country.

Well, for a long time it’s been that your ticket to the American dream, or demonstrating that you’ve arrived within the American dream, that a piece of that is home ownership. And that owning a home meant that you have claimed a stake and you are now a part of the fabric of this country. So what did that mean for people who were homeless, who were renters, who were part of public housing?

So it created a huge chasm. And so, we’re challenging the assumption that home ownership means the American dream. But that rather that access to equitable housing and housing that is affordable and allows for people to participate in their communities is actually what the American Dream is.

The story of the new economy — cooperativization

JANIS – The new story of the economy is that everybody deserves a good job and a decent life. And that our government, our democracy has the tools to ensure that. And that responsible companies are also welcome. And companies that are willing to work in partnership with community and balance their interests. We want them to do well, but with a community interest, we’ll be more successful and we’ll have greater prosperity for everyone.

LAFOREST – I actually think that the push for a new economy is also around innovation. And I think that a new economy actually challenges that assumption that we all have, that the market has the answers. And you can look around the world and even places here in this country, where there are innovative, economic models that are cooperative models, like cooperative food systems, cooperative labor banks, cooperative housing systems. Where communities actually have a certain level of ownership. I think that’s a really important component of what we mean when we start to talk about a new American economy.

JANIS – We believe in winning, we recognize that we’re not going to win our whole dream. We’re not going to win our whole agenda immediately. We’re going to move step by step and hopefully we’re going to convert a lot of good businesses along the way to be our partners.

You have to model a culture that people want to emulate

LAFOREST – Uh-huh. And change the culture. You know, you set a precedent and so then you model a culture that people want to emulate. I think for us, rather than a corporation because the last several years have really been working on consolidating a comprehensive housing campaign, we’ve been looking at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, essentially, a bank, if you will, holding most of the mortgages in this country.

And seeing many, many properties tank and go into foreclosure. And so, at the pinnacle of this fight around the foreclosure crisis, there’s been a real battle around principal reduction, which is reducing the cost of a home to its current market value, as opposed to expecting the homeowner to pay what it was when they took out their mortgage. Which would allow millions of people to say in their homes.

Politics again – fighting to rid government of officials opposed to solutions

LAFOREST – In addition to that there’s an obligation to fund the National Housing Trust Fund, which would create affordable housing throughout the country. So we’ve got Ed DeMarco, who’s been the acting director of the FHFA, the Federal Housing and Finance Administration, who has refused to even consider looking at principal reduction or the funding of the National Housing Trust Fund as a solution. And the win has been Obama announced last week that he’s going to replace this man.

We’ve been fighting four plus years. Some of our groups knew that this was a problem and were targeting him from five or six years ago. And it really started to develop as the foreclosure crisis hit the forefront of the headlines that it pulled in new local and national entities into this fight. And now this man is going to be replaced. And we are in the mix of discussing the kind of person that needs to be running the Federal Housing and Finance Administration. And it took years. And lots of hard organizing on the ground.

People’s stories about small victories kept activists going

LAFOREST – People’s stories — people’s joys and inspiration around small victories that happen on the ground. So in Springfield, Massachusetts. Springfield No One Leaves, a very small organization there, got an ordinance passed that said that any mortgage holder that is able to foreclose a family out of their home has to pay a $10,000 bond to upkeep the property so that the entire community is not blighted and so that people’s spirits are not killed.

In Los Angeles SAJE, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy just won a comprehensive benefit, a community benefit agreement with the University of Southern California, who wants to expand out and build student housing. And they were granted $20 million in creating affordable housing, along with the student housing, and a guarantee to hire 30 percent of those jobs locally.

So those small victories aggregate to this larger sort of beating heart and people feeling deeply inspired by each other. But it takes work. So a role for Right to the City Alliance is to bring those organizations together as often as possible, to talk about those victories and the models and the challenges so that there is reciprocal inspiration happening across the country.

Ways for ordinary citizens to help – join or fund local activist organizations and spread the word

JANIS – There are great organizations in every part of this country. And, probably not well known. So people can be involved in multiple ways. They can be involved in organizing around a living wage campaign or around a housing rights campaign. Or a campaign that’s, you know, that’s environmental and, or building sustainable communities and good jobs.

There are… you can be involved in your church. And, you know, in churches and synagogues there are a lot of religious leaders of faith who are connecting to groups like, for example, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. In California there’re chapters all over. The National Interfaith Committee.

Be involved in your union. A lot of people still belong to unions in this country. But unions are made up of human beings. And those unions are not going to become progressive, stalwart leaders in this country until you and all of your coworkers take responsibility for your union. And become involved and fight for a really broader progressive agenda.

There’re so many ways to become involved. And, you know, you just have your pick of them. And I would say also contribute your funding, your own personal money. You know, fifty dollars here, one hundred dollars there from everybody really adds up.

LAFOREST – Two dollars, five dollars really adds up. And I would add that there are even smaller and more manageable things that people can do. Educate your family. Really be open to learning about what is the vehicle for your values that really gets your values expressed? You know, be open to talking to your children around, about immigration and what that fight is about. About education and what it means, what the fight looks like to make sure that they’re able to be educated. About housing. Have conversations with your community and your family. Volunteer your time, open your home for an organization to be able to hold a meeting or bring some people together. There are so many ways. But so much of it can start with how you communicate in your home, how you open yourself up to understanding what the political current is, what the political moment is and the way that you can be engaged is huge in and of itself.

SEE ALSO

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

It will take more than petitions to stop Harper’s thirst for power over CBC

Petitions are seldom an effective method of achieving change, unless they are accompanied by other, more effective actions.

No 738 Posted by fw, May 06, 2013

“If on-line petitioners and other organizations are really concerned about the future of the CBC, their time would be better spent developing more effective campaigns. They could form one umbrella movement for a CBC campaign. If they have a difficult time coming up with an effective strategy, an experienced organization like as Greenpeace International would be able to advise them. What is needed is a fully developed plan that has a variety of tactics.”Nick Fillmore

Activist Nick Fillmore explains why he thinks petitions are a waste of time. Click on the linked title to read his original article or read the reprint below.

Petition photo

Petitions next to useless in campaign to defend CBC by Nick Fillmore, A Different Point of View, May 6, 2013

At least half-a-dozen petitions aimed at stopping Stephen Harper from taking control of the CBC are buzzing around the Internet. Pressure groups are putting a lot of effort into this campaign, but the question is – does sending petitions to Ottawa have any effect on the Conservatives. Are they just wasting everyone’s time?

The many petitions contain all the right language:

“Prime Minister Harper is using his latest budget bill to seize unprecedented power over the CBC,” say Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and LeadNow in a joint appeal. “Independent public media is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and we cannot stand by and let the CBC be silenced and controlled for partisan political gain.”

“The government would be able to have dictatorial control over the terms and conditions of employment of non-union staff — and any collective bargaining among unionized staff — at the CBC and Radio Canada,” says a petition started by SumOfUs.

These and other petitions rightly attack the federal government for brazenly over-stepping its mandate in regard to the CBC, a supposedly independent Crown Corporation. However, both the public and organizations that lead campaigns need to revisit history and be reminded of which tactics do, and do not, work.

Petitions delivered to the government in the House of Commons are seldom an effective method of achieving change, unless they are accompanied by other, more effective actions.

Conservative groups do influence the Conservatives on right-wing issues. The way the Canadian Taxpayers Federation bombards right-wing governments across the country pays off.

Internationally, groups such as Avaaz, with 21-million members worldwide, claim that the huge petitions they circulate, concerning issues such as helping to save elephants in Thailand, are effective. Celebrities such as Al Gore say their work is important.

In Canada, petitions supporting progressive causes do not count for much in Ottawa unless the public also happens to strongly support the same cause. LeadNow and SumOfUs have channeled more than 86,000 messages to Harper opposing the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement. At the same time, tens-of-thousands of Canadians have expressed their opposition to the deal in other ways, so the messages may not have been very influential.

Harper has had the destruction of the CBC high on his ‘To Do’ list for decades. Diminishing the power of what Harper sees as an aggravating, liberal-minded, taxpayer-funded force would be a viewed by right-wingers as a great victory.

Organizing only petitions is a half-hearted measure that does a disservice to the progressive movement. 

Unfortunately, poorly thought-out petitions can have a negative impact on some people who really care about issues. Those who sign on are hopeful that they have made a contribution to the cause. But, in the case of the CBC petition, it is false hope. When the petition has no impact whatsoever, they’ll resign themselves to defeat.

If on-line petitioners and other organizations are really concerned about the future of the CBC, their time would be better spent developing more effective campaigns. They could form one umbrella movement for a CBC campaign. If they have a difficult time coming up with an effective strategy, an experienced organization like as Greenpeace International would be able to advise them. What is needed is a fully developed plan that has a variety of tactics.

For instance, if some of those same people who signed the CBC petition clogged up the communication lines and shut down the government for a day once a week for a month – I bet Harper would pay attention!

Footnote: When most Internet campaigning organizations launch on-line petitions they’re concerned about more than bringing change. They also want to collect the names and email addresses of as many people as possible so they can contact them later to ask for donations to support the group’s activities. For some groups, there must sometimes be the temptation of launching petitions that are particularly popular with the public to make sure new names for fundraising are generated.

Nick Fillmore is an award-winning investigative reporter and a founder of the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ), Nick was a news editor and producer with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for more than 20 years.

SEE ALSO

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Freedom and democracy come from the spaces we create inside the struggle – Tim Gee

Any activist who stays an activist long enough must confront the question of effectiveness

No 578 Posted by fw September 26, 2012

“But a revolution isn’t just an event, it’s an ongoing process. The definition of democracy is when people have power, and they can only have power through counterpower, so I suppose the struggle always needs to continue. It’s not in the regime that we find democracy, but in the movement, those beautiful moments of power vacuums when people are able to think for themselves… Freedom and democracy come from the spaces we create inside the struggle, and that has to go on forever. There’s not a perfect end that we’re working toward, just possibilities of extending those moments of freedom and people power.”Tim Gee

The above passage is from an interview with British activist Tim Gee, author of Counterpower: Making Change Happen, a book prominently featured in a series of posts on this blog.

The interview appeared on Waging Nonviolence, “a source for news, analysis and original reporting about nonviolent activism, as well as for discussion of the theory behind it.” If you haven’t already heard of this site of people-powered news and analysis, do take a look – you won’t be disappointed.

Here’s the interview with Gee with added hyperlinks and text highlighting. Although some of Gee’s responses were short and ambiguous in places, there are some gems of wisdom and sound advice to treasure here. To read the original piece, click on the linked title.

New language for nonviolence — a conversation with Tim Gee by Bryan Farrell, Waging Nonviolence, September 26, 2012

Any activist who stays an activist long enough must confront the question of effectiveness. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” Of course, such a maxim is only useful to those willing to recognize when they are just hacking away among the thousand. Most activists would rather think of themselves as the ones striking at the root.

In recent years, however, a growing body of literature has emerged to challenge stubborn perceptions about how change is made — each with its own unique insight. With Why Civil Resistance Works, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephen demonstrate that mass participation is everything. In Join The Club, Tina Rosenberg makes a case for peer pressure. John Jackson and Steve Crawshaw show the importance of humor and creativity in Small Acts of Resistance. And smartMeme co-founders Patrick Reinsborough and Doyle Canning explain why story-telling is an integral component to organizing in Re:Imagining Change.

The latest of these is a book by British activist Tim Gee called Counterpower: Making Change Happen. In the introduction, Gee says, “This book began as an inquiry into how campaigning might be more effective.” But as he dove into the archives — specifically the Working Class Movement Library near Manchester with memorabilia dating back to the 1790s — Gee noticed that “all the successful campaigns appeared to have followed a fairly similar path.” The one thing missing from a lot of the writings on these campaigns, however, was an understanding of power as coming from the “have-nots.”

For students of Gene Sharp and other thinkers on strategic nonviolence, this may not seem like a particularly new revelation. But Gee is from a newer generation of activists baptized in the global justice movement. He cut his teeth opposing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with student groups before moving on to fighting climate change with Britain’s anarchist-guided Camp for Climate Action.

It is this background that not only informs his unique perspective but also makes the history of resistance and the strategy behind it accessible to a whole new audience. And not a minute too soon; the Occupy movement began the same week Counterpower was released.

I recently spoke with Gee about his use of an old and largely forgotten term, whether the climate movement can win, and how true democracy exists within movements and the spaces they create.

Did you anticipate the Occupy movement in any way when you were completing Counterpower? And what was the effect of the release coinciding with Occupy London’s launch?

The book finishes with the Indignados. The last lines of the book were, “I hope you will be part of the next chapter.” And then before it was published this wonderful, though flawed, mass movement did just that. The story of the tour became interlinked with Occupy. I was visiting different cities and their Occupy camps. It was quite useful. It was a great excuse to meet people who were doing great stuff and discuss, debate and run workshops. I didn’t see all of the ingredients of a successful campaign in Occupy, but it was still such an exciting outburst of energy and anger that it was a thrill to be a part of.

That kind of mass sustained action had been absent from American activism for quite some time. But in other parts of the world, such as Europe and the U.K., it doesn’t seem quite so uncommon. Would you agree?

The grass is always greener. The sense that I got in the U.S. was that the radical movement was very wise and got it — perhaps proportionately small to the population at large — but people engaged in it seem to be doing something that we haven’t managed to do properly here in Britain, which is to turn the movement from media stunts and city center occupations to actual frontline solidarity with affected communities. All of the Occupy activists I met in the States were telling me about it, while at the same time saying how exhausting it was and how things looked better in Britain.

Someone I know once said, “The trouble with British NGOs is that they engage in great moments instead of great movements, which start small and take a long time.” And I think he was spot on. That was someone who was becoming disillusioned with mainstream British NGOs at the time and then became one of the key organizers within Occupy London. So that was an interesting trajectory to follow.

Tell us about your background and what led you to become so interested in people power.

I come from a political family. I come from a Quaker family. So being around peace demonstrations and nonviolence is always something that’s been there. But I was never particularly interested in it until I was about 15 or 16 and I was at a Quaker summer school for teenagers. Peter Tatchell — better known in U.K. than U.S. as a high profile gay rights activist — spoke about the civil disobedience that he had been involved with, which was to get rid of Section 28, a horrible piece of homophobic legislation that said you couldn’t talk about homosexuality as if it was normal within schools. So I got involved in the very tail end of that campaign and I’d had some homophobic bullying at school. It was personal.

The campaign eventually won. It had absolutely nothing to do with my involvement, but it was an early reminder that change can happen through people power. If you look at that change in legislation and values in the ongoing struggle for homosexual equality, that’s a nice thing to remind ourselves of, especially as I went from then into the antiwar movement and School Students Against the War. I was also very involved in Climate Camp, including some relatively confrontational stuff. I got my arm broken by some cops in Copenhagen and got arrested whilst I was writing the book at Climate Camp, which didn’t help with the writing.

Especially with the war and climate change we faced a lot of setbacks. I wanted to look backwards at some of the campaigns that had been successful. I wrote in the introduction about the Working Class Movement Library, of which my stepdad was the librarian for the last 20 years. So I knew where to get these stories. In the socialist movement that my parents are more associated with, particularly the trade union movement, people are told stories in a structured way, of the movement and what’s gone before. In the non-hierarchical movement that I’m more a part of, that’s not there unless someone decides that they’re going to play that role. So that’s the role I decided to play.

Why do you use the term “counterpower” as opposed to nonviolence, nonviolent action, civil resistance or any of the many other terms that have been used to describe the type of power average people possess?

In lots of languages there is a word for struggle from below, and in English there isn’t really. I mentioned a few attempts at it in the introduction, such as black power, worker power and sisterhood is powerful, and all of these ideas. But that word counterpower is there. It’s there in the anarchist discourse. If we want reformist ends then we have to engage in revolutionary tactics. That’s why I used a word from the revolutionary discourse, even though, when I started out, my only intention was to ask how we can win campaigns. There’s a lot more I could have said about dual power and power vacuums and, the more I read, the more convinced I get that it’s when countries get to a stage of power vacuums with no one in control that the big transitions happen. I’m more and more interested in how we can extend those periods of power vacuums. I wish I had written more about that.

Given your background as a Quaker, it’s surprising you don’t use the word “nonviolence” much in the book. Is there a reason for that?

There were a few intentional reasons for that. The first is that I knew what I had been brought up to believe, and I only wanted to argue things that I could back up rather than stuff I just had a hunch about. Secondly, nonviolence in itself is not a form of power or counterpower. It’s just a thing. By itself, it’s not nonviolent resistance or nonviolent coercion from below or nonviolent counterpower. So that’s why I spent two chapters talking about counterpower before talking about nonviolence. And then I tried to explain why nonviolence is superior to violence, and I speak about that especially in the conclusion.

I also didn’t want to gloss over the fact that violence can be successful. But I wanted to show that violence leads to a different kind of social change than nonviolence, one in which power is a lot more dispersed. For all of those reasons I wanted to show pragmatic and practical reasons for nonviolence, rather than just my own morality that I’d been brought up with about nonviolence, which wouldn’t necessarily convince anyone.

What types of counterpower do you see most in effective campaigns?

Every book I read about theories of power seemed to argue pretty much the same thing. They seemed to argue that there were three kinds of power and they mostly had fairly long names for them. So I decided to simplify that and use the shortest or most obvious words I could find. One form of power is idea power, which is the ability to persuade someone of something through the media or discussions or songs. Another kind is economic power, which is the ability to pay someone to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. And the third one is physical power or coercion, the ability to force someone to do something. What I’m interested in is power from below, counterpower. I think all of these can be turned on their heads. Idea counterpower, economic counterpower and physical counterpower.

You identify four stages of a successful campaign: consciousness, coordination, confrontation and consolidation. But you also discuss stages that other theorists and organizers have identified. What did you learn from them in developing your own four stages?

Almost everything in the book is a synthesis of stuff that’s already out there, because one of my objectives was to write in as simple a way as possible, to get it out to activists who wouldn’t necessarily find the really specialist stuff. As I see it, I don’t contradict those other theories. The book lays out a series of stages which seems to be there in all past campaigns. The most quoted stage theory of all, which isn’t really a stage theory, is Gandhi’s “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”

On that note, you observe, “The power to ignore movements is possibly the most important and least understood aspect of idea power.” As an example of where this is the case you cite the U.S. climate movement. 

In 2009, at least, it did feel like the global climate movement was getting to a stage where it couldn’t be ignored. It was getting beyond that. It was on the front pages of all of the newspapers. We would have tens of thousands on the streets, the biggest climate demonstrations the world had ever seen, which haven’t been repeated since. We had an ability to move from that first stage of consciousness-raising into that second stage of coordinating a mass movement beyond the NGOs, into the grassroots. And then there were these wonderful climate actions that took place. But the movement as a whole isn’t getting to the third stage, the confrontation stage. And by that I mean a mass withdrawal of consent large enough to nonviolently coerce the powers that be into giving enough concessions to solve the problem. We focused too much attention on Copenhagen. Even people who knew that the Copenhagen negotiations were incapable of coming up with an answer able to deal with the problem still focused their attention on it, myself included. We were still in that asking-nicely stage, rather than the withdrawal of consent.

The other problem we face in the climate movement is that we’ve been quite good at idea counterpower — at convincing lots of people of the problem — although that’s now being fought back against. We’ve been relatively good at physical counterpower; we’ve had some brilliant, although relatively diffuse actions and blockades. But we’ve not even touched economic counterpower. The people that can close down a coal-fired power station are the workers inside it. I don’t know if it’s the same in the United States, but people would offer the same criticism of the Climate Camp movement in the U.K. Our engagement of the workers in the places we were targeting would be last minute and slapdash if it was anything.

There were some examples of building solidarity with workers. There was an occupation at a wind turbine factory when it got closed down. It’s an interesting case, because prior to it being closed down, it wasn’t a strongly unionized workplace. That was one action at one factory that the U.K. climate movement actually managed. If we reengage with that next time, and we get to a point of being able to move from movement building to confrontation, then we’ll be in a better position.

How do you think that can be done? The environment has long been pitted against the economy as a means of keeping the working class uninterested.

We’re actually doing relatively well, because we started again and we started with a different tack. Now the movement is more about transformation and challenging the economic system. The climate stuff has been folded into this bigger narrative. Through Occupy and other things we’ve been building a first stage and we’re moving into a second stage with the house occupations and the broad grassroots movement that’s being built at the moment. Wider systemic struggle has the ability to solve climate problems if it manages to see it through in a way that a climate movement based entirely around climate as the main thing proved unable to do.

A similarity that I sometimes like to draw with the anti-slavery movement in the U.K. — which is obviously only part of the global anti-slavery movement — is that activists didn’t get the first legislation against slavery through the British Parliament until I think it was 1834. They’d been plugging away at it, but before they could do it, they had to win changes to the Parliament itself. They had to win the reform act of 1832. At least for a few years, many people in the anti-slavery movement, not all of them, put their attention toward redistributing power through another route, which was the vote. Only then could they begin chipping away at slavery. That’s what we’re trying to do with the climate movement. We’re trying to redistribute power, and we’re going through a different route at the moment. Now it’s jobs and public services. If we manage to chip away at the power of the 1 percent, who are also the same people screwing with the planet, then we can reengage with climate issues on the frontline as part of this bigger campaign. But we’re doing okay. I’m more optimistic than most.

One of the major challenges facing practitioners of this kind of work is corporate power. Gene Sharp has very humbly said that he leaves that work to the next generation to figure out. Can we adapt the principles of fighting authoritarian regimes to fighting corporations?

A lot can be pulled across from anti-dictatorship struggles to anti-corporate struggles. A great number of the things we think of as dictatorships have the illusion of democracy and claimed to be democratic. The Burmese regime has claimed it’s moving toward multi-party democracy for the last 20 years, and the Soviet Union called itself a democracy, although not a multiparty one. From the study I’ve managed to do so far, I find that all forms of hierarchical organization, from a country to maybe even patriarchy, have these three pillars of economic power, physical power and idea power. If we chip away at them, that can contribute to weakening any form of regime.

And what about movements against dictators that become capitalist so-called democracies and don’t improve things too much?

That certainly does happen. But a revolution isn’t just an event, it’s an ongoing process. The definition of democracy is when people have power, and they can only have power through counterpower, so I suppose the struggle always needs to continue. It’s not in the regime that we find democracy, but in the movement, those beautiful moments of power vacuums when people are able to think for themselves. I was reading Peter Popham’s autobiography of Aung Sang Suu Kyi today, and it was talking about the power vacuum that happened in 1988 and how it coincided with people thinking freely and debating freely for the first time in many years, just as has happened in Egypt. Freedom and democracy come from the spaces we create inside the struggle, and that has to go on forever. There’s not a perfect end that we’re working toward, just possibilities of extending those moments of freedom and people power.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing