The Great Debate: Can Occupy Achieve Its Political Goals by Remaining Outside of Main-stream Politics?

FOR/ KIT MARSTERS

It is becoming increasingly clear that mainstream politicians do not always have the public’s best interest at heart. Over the last few years dodgy practices have been exposed, and few would deny the influence of big business on the political process. The comment sections of online publications, and programs such as Question Time, reveal the general population’s lack of faith in politicians, and in politics as a whole.

For many people, elections are frustrating because there is no real choice and they do not know who to vote for. They feel betrayed by Labour; and the Tories target the vulnerable. During the last election the Liberal Democrats benefitted from a willingness to get rid of the two-party system but now they, too, are regarded as more of the same.

So who is left? Not many voters would opt for the BNP, with their questionable agenda. UKIP isn’t considered to be much better. The Greens? They could be an option, but how much would truly change if they were to be elected? The environment may be better off with them in charge, but what about the UK as a whole? The same system and the same flawed processes would still remain in place.

It may seem hypocritical to suggest a move into mainstream politics when Occupy protests decisions made by mainstream politics.  Then again, the government has proven that it’s unwilling to listen to the 99%, and sometimes you have to get inside the system in order to achieve desired change.

When reading the comment sections in the media, and various forums around the Internet, the same questions are repeated over and over: Who are these Occupy people? What do they stand for? What are their plans? How, exactly, do they represent me?

At best, Occupy is seen as ineffective. When the looming eviction was announced, some were surprised that we were still there. At worst, those who oppose Occupy tell others that it’s made up of a bunch of “benefit scroungers” and “trustafarians” who are jealous of the rich and too lazy to earn their own money.

Another question that comes up, with increasing frequency, is “why don’t they stand for election, then? If they don’t like the government, why don’t they form a political party and give people the option to vote for them?”

Why not indeed? If Occupy wishes to represent the 99%, why don’t we allow the 99% to decide whether or not they want us to represent them? It would offer the public an alternative during elections. It would give them a voice. By ticking the Occupy box, it would allow them to affirm clearly that they are not okay with the way the country is run. This would give a lot more weight to the movement.

How can we expect the government to listen to us when those we are meant to speak for do not know who we are, or what we stand for? When some do not even realise we are still going? It is far too easy for those in power to cling on to the misperception that we are just a bunch of work-shy youngsters out of touch with the real world and without any meaningful knowhow. They are not worried about us. They have no reason to be.

Working with the system rather than against it does not mean we have to sell out. If the 99% did rise up and vote for Occupy, we could change the system. We could give it the values we stand for, and create fairness for all.

It would be another tool, another resource to effect change, not only on a national but also on an international basis, because if we could make it work, it might just get other countries to sit up and pay attention. It would show people around the world that there is another way.

Occupy is NOT made up of the lazy or the work-shy. It is a movement that involves people of different ages, cultures, backgrounds and skills who, between them, could certainly come up with an effective and inclusive manifesto. All we would need to do is get it out there and prove that change does not always mean a change for the worse.

AGAINST/ JUDITH SCHOSSBOECK

What Occupy can achieve outside of mainstream politics depends on how one defines its political goals. I argue that a lot of these goals have already been fully realised, as one of the main functions of social movements is to bring specific, so far underrepresented topics on the political agenda and to provoke change in people’s mindsets. Who would claim that this has not been the case with Occupy? So far, the movement has been tremendously successful in provoking discussion on the subcultural level and ?in public discourses. In a second step, this could lead to a change of values towards more ethical business and government practices.

The function of social movements is often mistaken with the one of parties although both goals and actions differ considerably. Direct action activities outside of the main political channels are a significant element of the political counter-public. Occupy thus needs radical visual events and actions to reach visibility and publicity of its claims. Public occupations and civil disobedience are crucial in this regard and cannot be undertaken while being bound by the rules of mainstream politics. And whilst mainstream institutions do not provide an arena for expressing alternative or more radical political concepts, social movements offer a playground for these ideas or failures and seek to make them known.

I am all for experimenting with new and alternative political concepts (e.g. the liquid democracy model used by some Occupy formations). However, mainstream politics does, at least at the moment, not consider these alternatives to classic representative democracy. Unless such models are seriously discussed, Occupy entering the political mainstream would interfere with the core idea of the “Real democracy now!” slogan, Occupy’s direct democracy procedures and other principles of the movement. Occupy should not fall into the trap of the current political system, in which people feel disenchanted with politics as they think they have no say. Considering alternative models of democracy and delegation becomes particularly relevant in international Occupy activities, e.g. international coordination meetings, when individuals might have to represent a national perspective. In mainstream politics, individuals are turned into party mouthpieces while politics becomes increasingly populist. Thus, electing people into the current system and making them a voice of Occupy would be in itself problematic. One of the frequently criticised characteristics of Occupy is actually one of its strengths: that nobody owns it or can claim the name (although people cannot be prevented from doing so sometimes). Nevertheless, whether occupiers decide to stand as a candidate for a political party as individuals is still their own business.

It goes without saying that the current nature of mainstream politics is part of the reason why Occupy exists. Right now, the majority of activists are against turning the movement into a political platform and most occupiers opposition the idea of entering into the political mainstream. Given that consensus would be needed for such a move, this is very unlikely to happen in the not too distant future, although some endorse the concept of real participatory democracy for a new society. However, entering the political mainstream would currently get people divided as the majority does not want to be in a political party or support the political system in its current status.

In addition to the lack of support for such plans, Occupy does also not seem to have the infrastructure or simply the money required for political campaigns in many countries – let alone on the global level. This does not mean political platforms cannot come out of some movements, but it should not be priority at this stage.

Occupy is currently entering a new phase in which ways of gaining more political influence need to be considered. I am not arguing against strategies of influencing political parties or even cooperating with them. But staying autonomous in this game and influencing the political system from the outside in unconventional ways is an often underestimated strategy, although it has been the movement’s mission from the very beginning. In this regard, building permanent civic networks can even be more influential than entering mainstream politics.