Occupy Toronto needs to change its strategies if it wants to attract mainstream support
Yesterday, an Ontario judge ruled against the Occupy Toronto protesters, arguing that a removal order against tent-city was constitutional and could apply immediately. Occupy Toronto called on citizens to come down to the park to protect the occupation. As an individual who agrees with what I see to be the fundamental goals of the movement - an end to injustice and equity - it is disheartening that the debate now revolves around the Occupy movement’s physical encampment.
The strength of the original Occupy Movement was that it would represent the plight of an increasingly marginalized majority - the 99%. Appalling levels of inequality, rampant poverty, and a relatively inaccessible political system are very important issues, but it seems like very few citizens support Occupy Toronto.
Why?
The average citizen may have a different understanding of the goals of the movement than its protesters. The lack of leadership and clear directed message makes analysis difficult, but three questions are critical.
What type of change is necessary to sustainably address the issues facing the 99% majority? Are these only political and economic problems, or more entrenched social and structural issues? What does success look like? Answering these questions are vital as the extent of the problem identified largely determines the effectiveness of the movement’s strategy.
If the problems are political and economic in nature, reform working through the system - using the courts and government institutions - may be successful. This can take the form of addressing issues through town halls with representatives, the creation of a political party and the use of the ballot box, and lobbying for specific policies.
On the other hand, our system could be the problem. In the Middle East, any sort of meaningful reform required bringing down the entire system. As we witnessed, revolution required incredible commitment from a significant portion of the population, and could even entail violence.
And so, we need to decide: do we need to change our entire system to fix the problems of the 99% and is a revolution palatable to the average Canadian?
I don’t think so, and I would argue that the majority of people sympathetic to the goals of the movement would similarly disagree. However, the most vocal members of Occupy Toronto call for a revolution of sorts. Unfortunately, reform of the system and revolution are incompatible strategies.
If the Occupy movement wants to attract mainstream support, required for its success, it should combine its strategies of dialogue and protest with efforts to use the energy of the movement to work within the system for meaningful change.
The strength of the original Occupy Movement was that it would represent the plight of an increasingly marginalized majority - the 99%. Appalling levels of inequality, rampant poverty, and a relatively inaccessible political system are very important issues, but it seems like very few citizens support Occupy Toronto.
Why?
The average citizen may have a different understanding of the goals of the movement than its protesters. The lack of leadership and clear directed message makes analysis difficult, but three questions are critical.
What type of change is necessary to sustainably address the issues facing the 99% majority? Are these only political and economic problems, or more entrenched social and structural issues? What does success look like? Answering these questions are vital as the extent of the problem identified largely determines the effectiveness of the movement’s strategy.
If the problems are political and economic in nature, reform working through the system - using the courts and government institutions - may be successful. This can take the form of addressing issues through town halls with representatives, the creation of a political party and the use of the ballot box, and lobbying for specific policies.
On the other hand, our system could be the problem. In the Middle East, any sort of meaningful reform required bringing down the entire system. As we witnessed, revolution required incredible commitment from a significant portion of the population, and could even entail violence.
And so, we need to decide: do we need to change our entire system to fix the problems of the 99% and is a revolution palatable to the average Canadian?
I don’t think so, and I would argue that the majority of people sympathetic to the goals of the movement would similarly disagree. However, the most vocal members of Occupy Toronto call for a revolution of sorts. Unfortunately, reform of the system and revolution are incompatible strategies.
If the Occupy movement wants to attract mainstream support, required for its success, it should combine its strategies of dialogue and protest with efforts to use the energy of the movement to work within the system for meaningful change.
Comments
Post a Comment