The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    David Seaton's picture

    Movements without "leaders"

    By David Seaton on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 12:44pm |

    The other day, a top American political consultant, Matthew Dowd, was visiting Madrid and was interviewed by the local "newspaper of reference", El País. When he was asked his opinion about Spain's "15th of May" citizen's movement, AKA, "The Spanish Revolution" or "Los Indignados", he dismissed them saying, "If they want to influence the system they must work from within, supporting a leader." In so saying, I think this consummate insider has revealed one of the keys to a political system which today seems much more in tune with lobbies and special interest groups than with the lives and concerns of its citizens and voters: a "caste apart"... precisely what los indignados are indignant about.

    Are political leaders a solution?

     A true political movement is about agreed goals, not about "leaders". Look at the American Civil Rights movement, a true citizen's movement if there ever was one. Martin Luther King was its voice, but the energy behind his voice was the energy of thousands of "Rosa Parks": black people, who had it very clear in their minds that they had had enough. Men and women, even children, who simply were not about to take any more shit.

    Without those thousands upon thousands of "Rosa Parks", marchers and martyrs, and their firm decision not to back down even one step, Martin Luther King would have been no more than another fine example of the African-American community's legendary, evangelical pulpit artistry. The nobility of the movement he gave voice to washes away any controversies over personal frailties he may have had and enshrines him in American history. In short, Rosa Parks "created" Martin Luther King and Martin Luther King Day and not vice-versa.

    Therefore a clear cause, with clear objectives, is the heart of a powerful movement: objectives which elicit the commitment of those who join it, and that combination of objectives and massive commitment calls forth clear "leadership" as needed. In short a healthy mass political movement is created first by the "followers" not by the "leaders".

    Starting with the leader and then looking around for some objectives and then looking for followers is simply manipulative, no different really than selling any other product. You could even say that in a "leader-originated" movement, the leader's role is to take the "movement" out of the movement. Certainly there could be no greater contrast than between the Civil Rights Movement and the marketing operation, cast as a "movement", that took Barack Obama to the White House. Contrast MLK's, "If man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live." with Obama's lawyerly, "change (you can believe in) ".

    The proof of this is that, what should have been the crowning moment of the Civil Rights struggle, putting an African-American into the White House, after all the froth and self-congratulation, is turning out to be next to meaningless by any objective measure.

    So Matthew Dowd is wrong. There is a surfeit of "leaders" today, politics is crawling with them, what are needed are people: masses of committed people, people who come together with clear objectives to change things and just like Rosa Parks, wont take no for an answer. 

    It would make me happy to think that anything as spontaneous and potentially fertile as Spain's "indignados" could spring to life in the USA... that would change not only the USA, it would change the entire world.

    We live in hope.

    Crossposted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    Rosa Parks was not the first Black women to be arrested for refusing to give up her seat. Rosa Prks was a brave woman, but it took someone who had ledership skills and charisma to develop a movement, thus leaders are importnt. Similarly, in Little Rock, parents and students were courageous, but it took a leader like Daisy Bates to create the momoenntum for the Little Rock Nine.

    Societal movements are like orchestras. The instruments and musical talent are there, but there are section leaders and a conductor to keep the orchestra starting at the same time. Look at ACORN after it's leaders were neutered. Did poor people interested in voting mgically disappear? Do you think their voting impact has increased or decreased?

    Regarding the Indignados, was part of their protest that votes should not be cast for either of the two leading parties? If so, how successful was that part of the protest?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 1:08pm

    Regarding the Indignados, was part of their protest that votes should not be cast for either of the two leading parties? If so, how successful was that part of the protest?

    Very successful.

    Local "prima inter pares" leadership like you mention, is one thing, and the "great leader" is quite another. We have too many of the second and not enough of the first IMHO


    by David Seaton on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 4:43pm

    So fewer votes were cast for all candidates in the Spanish election?

    Can you name the leaderless revolutions in history?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 9:05pm

    So fewer votes were cast for all candidates in the Spanish election?

    Socialist voters abstained as they felt that the Socialist Party was doing the conservative's dirty work... They want to get the Socialist out of the way and deal directly with the right themselves.

    Can you name the leaderless revolutions in history?

    It has to come from the people first. All real revolutions begin with rebellion and then leaders come forth from among the rebels, with plans, with ideas, but first comes the masses of people seeing the need to change and with a fairly clear idea of what change is.... not just something "you can believe in".

    One of the biggest problems America has is the manipulation of public opinion, which is draining all the quality out of its democracy.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 1:31am

    So instead of generating polticians who agree with their point of view, the "people" elected the opposition?


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:02am

    The traditional Socialist voters decided that if the Socialists were enacting neoliberal policies, they wouldn't vote for them, preferring to face the rightwing, without masks on.... in the months to come the battle will be more in the street: strikes and demonstrations. If the Socialists don't move back to the left, they are toast.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 8:37am

    This whole discussion is rather pointless in my opinion. There ain't no way Washington or Wall Street is going to change it's ways with out an armed insurrection. And you are not likely to see that because ther are far too many people who are too heavily vested in the system as it stands.

    So forget the American Spring or any attempt to Infiltrate the Democratic party with self styled progressives.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 9:52pm

    It might be enough if people arrived at a state of discontent similar to that experienced by African-Americans in the 1950s, it would all flow from there. And of course, the Democrats are part of the problem, not the solution themselves, but they are as good as any others to vote and sign a bill into law. The pressure has to come from the bottom up.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 1:34am

    I basically agreed with your preference for ground-up over top-down political movement, David. Although I recall your early criticism of the Egyptian Spring largely focused on the need for a man on horseback, which I thought at the time was totally off-target.

    Thing is, revolutions and political movements in general are organic. Different dynamics, different structures are called for at every stage as they evolve. Ground-level leadership is what turns a revolutionary situation into a revolutionary movement, which in turn calls forth a higher level of leadership and organization -- to formulate an agenda, a strategy and, yes, an electoral policy.

    Shared anger and indignation come first, and that's often enough to put people into the streets and even get troops to defy orders. "Agreed goals" crystalize only gradually, as leadership and structure emerge. Leaders -- and the right leaders -- have to emerge, or the movement dries up and disappears.

    You're much closer to events, but "los indignados" strike me as missing that leadership element. I don't buy your contention that it was a strategic choice to empower the right in order to face them head-on. It was a protest non-vote, yes, but like the Naderites essentially a dead end. Which is not to say something new and viable won't emerge from the rubble.

    The Egyptian Revolution, by contrast, is ongoing. Its leadership is diffuse, but it's very real, very active, and it hasn't lost momentum. Unlike the Spanish vote boycott, it's had a couple of tangible, concrete results. By the time presidential elections roll around, I'm pretty sure the movement will coalesce around a single reform candidate. After a slow, stuttering start, it might even be elBaradei. But the candidate is less important than the fact he will be a product of the ground-up movement you talk about.


    by acanuck on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 12:15pm

    The Spanish movement was more than a vote boycott... that was going to happen anyway. Spain is a center-left country and the traditional socialist voters feel betrayed by the Socialist Party, which is applying neo-liberal recipes and is seen bending its neck to the financial sector... So the socialist's base has deserted them. The 15-M movement had nothing to do with that, if anything it rode on its coat tails.

    What you have here is this fantastic young generation in Spain, which produces world champion soccer, tennis, etc, etc, but who have no jobs waiting for them. They have now been in assembly for a month debating and organizing... they are very disciplined, they kept everything clean, they kept alcohol out, no fights, no violence, they even brought breakfast coffee to the police(!!!) they have formed neighborhood committees, they have their own encrypted Internet networks.

    Comparing this to Egypt is not really very apt, Mubarak's hash  was finally settled by the ultimate "man on horseback"... the Egyptian army. What makes Spain different from Egypt is that, among other things, like size, literacy and GDP, it is not a dictatorship... people are not being shot down, or tortured... This Spanish thing is all about street theater, ridiculing and harassing the political mandarins of a functioning European democracy, which like America's is seen to be a corrupt servant of lobbies and interest groups.

    What makes Madrid specially suited for all this is that official Madrid is very small for a country of Spain's wealth and influence. Madrid is a sort New York and Washington combined, financial-political-cultural center that can be crossed at night with no traffic in less than a1/2 hour, everything you'd want to see is within walking distance.

    You may remember Gertrude Stein describing her home town in the States, saying, "When you get there, there is no there, there.", well Madrid is exactly the opposite: it is filled with "theres". From the Puerta del Sol, the official "center" of Spain and the final destination of most big demonstrations to the Spanish parliament is only a five minute walk... down hill!

    So if you have 5 or 10 thousand people that you can form a flashmob with at the drop of the hat, you can move them around the ministries and big corporation headquarters like a panzer division and turn the town into a political circus. What this month of assembly has put together is that instrument. 

    Stay tuned and watch the fun. I think it is going to create a youth fashion, especially in Europe... America is more complicated, because there are so fewer "theres" there.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 3:41pm