Consideration or Implosion? Pick one!
The women and men of Boomantribune are calling for an effective counter attack. Well, I know of no better method of developing an effective counter attack than a method that would use the principles and links discussed below the fold of this diary.
But before we get into that I’d like to make some preliminary comments;
Progressive Implosion? Well, what the hell else would you call an opposition movement that seems to be collapsing in on itself?
Think about it folks. Think about all the diaries and comments you’ve read over these past several weeks.
Think about;
The Disappeared bloggers, Long-time bloggers gone on sabbatical, Upset formerly-active bloggers lurking-only, Active bloggers commenting less frequently, and another 3000 members prefer “read only”… (no doubt many of them would have some wisdom to add if’n it wasn’t for the blog-quicksands .)
I ask you WTF ever happened to CONSIDERATION?
Tell me. Where did it go?
Since it appears that we’re headed into some very rough waters, in nearly all aspects of our lives, IMO we are going to have to start cutting each other some slack.
So when the next huge divisive controversy hits, let’s just try to have a little CONSIDERATION for each other.
`Cause as our very own suskind said here the other day, Also I ask myself often, “Since when is your best not good enough?” Since never.
Well, we’re all trying our best, aren’t we?
Why not keep our focus on the task at hand;
Either we frog march’m out, or, if not, then we’d better be working on changing their point of view.
While I remain engaged in party politics locally, it seems doubtful that our near total reliance on party politics is going to be productive.
I see no guarantee that the momentum of this current administration will be derailed by focusing on political activism alone, regardless of whether we have wins or losses in ’06, or ’08.
Every day more news arrives that tends to convince me that we’re several rungs up the ladder of fascism, rather than on the first couple of rungs. (Someone suggested a fascism-clock; I say, Yes, let’s set one up, NOW.)
I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.
Never, have I seen such an intense level of disgust, both on blog and off, with our existing political leaders.
The Alito campaign clarified for nearly everyone I know that we have a near total vacuum of leadership at the national level of the Democrat party.
Originally, I thought the campaign to block Alito was a wonderful idea. But after such a tremendous expenditure of energy and emotion, what are we left with but a loss of confidence in our leadership and a loss of confidence in our own power to affect a change in what’s left of our democracy.
It seems obvious that any movement will lose strength if it does not have some success once in a while. Why don’t we work on developing a more viable plan, one that has possibilities of generating confidence-building results.
So, “What in the hell else can we do?” you say.
Well, we have yet to seriously consider coordinating a Martin Luther King/Gandhi/Lech Walensa type movement.
And believe me, I’m certainly not so foolish as to imply that any particular tactic the aforementioned leaders used would necessarily be applicable to the difficulties we face today.
But from a study of the material referenced below it seems fairly obvious that the weaknesses in governmental structure, which allowed their movements to succeed, are very similar today.
And there’s no doubt Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Lech Walensa were just as innovative in their day, as we will need to be now, under the current threat to democracy.
In fact we have advantages now that they didn’t have, such as our ability to communicate and disseminate via internet, cell phones, podcasts, etc.
The movements of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Lech Walensa were able to encompass a wide variety of political persuasions.
So there’s no reason why everyone, from left of Democrats, Democrats, center Democrats, DINOs, Independents, Libertarians, and possibly even some moderate Republicans can’t participate in a plan to influencing the policies of this administration.
We have much more power at our disposal than we are allowing ourselves to believe that we have.
Please give democracy a chance, continue below the fold;
Sources of power are identified as residing among the people throughout society, with the power holder able to exercise only that power that the people permit.
In other words, the ruler can only rule with the consent and cooperation of the people […]
…the important point of the pluralistic model of power is that, since the people provide the ruler with the sources of his power, then the people can also withdraw their consent to be ruled by withholding the sources of power they collectively provide to the regime.
— Robert L Helvey On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals.
[All text in boxes from the above source. Robert L Helvey is a protégé of Gene Sharp]
Note: I could not find Helvey’s book at Powell’s, so use link above if you’d like to order. The link is not the pdf download but the pdf is available there.
There will always be ideals worth fighting for and oppression to be overcome. Some issues may not be resolvable through negotiations alone, but armed struggle may not be a viable option for an oppressed society, as the state often has the monopoly on military and other instruments of political coercion.
This does not mean that the oppressed people must then choose between submission and waging an armed struggle where defeat is nearly certain.
There is a third alternative to armed conflict for the pursuit of political change – strategic nonviolent struggle.
In the book, strategic nonviolent struggle means:
Nonviolent struggle that has been applied according to a strategic plan that has been prepared on the basis of an analysis of the conflict situation, the strengths and weaknesses of the contending groups, the nature, capacities and requirements of the technique of nonviolent action, and especially the strategic principles of that type of struggle. 1
1 Gene Sharp, There Are Realistic Alternatives, (Boston: The Albert Einstein Institution, 2003),38
As you will see, the nonviolent struggle concepts that Gene Sharp has developed, may be applied with effect against authoritarian regimes, as well as democracies such as Venezuela.
The fact that our military and CIA have made use of these techniques should verify for you the value of their effectiveness.
The end result of the Oct 2004 election in the Ukraine is a recent example of the power of nonviolent struggle. See Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution”
Our government and various institutions were involved, see Alleged involvement of outside forces
This book is written with hope that it may be of assistance to those who are searching for or examining nonviolent options as an alternative to armed struggle against an oppressive government or foreign occupation.
It is not a “how to” book on waging nonviolent struggle.
Rather, it offers a framework that encourages orderly thinking about the fundamentals of strategic nonviolent opposition to state tyranny.
It includes information on the theory, strategic planning, and operations for waging strategic nonviolent struggle that has proved to be effective. […]
…experience has shown that nonviolent struggle is an effective means of waging conflict against repressive regimes.
A military victory is achieved by destroying the opponent’s capacity and/or willingness to continue the fight.
In this regard, nonviolent strategy is no different from armed conflict, except that very different weapons systems are employed.
[…]
The starting gate for the application of strategic nonviolent struggle fundamentals is thinking about those fundamentals, and this book not only addresses them but also challenges the reader to think about applying these fundamentals for a particular cause.
Unlike an aircraft flight manual, there is no check list here that must be followed. Instead, there is a “check list” of ideas and suggestions to guide one’s thinking in making a transition form a dictatorship to a democracy.
[…]
… I met Dr. [Gene] Sharp during a meeting of the Program for Nonviolent Sanctions. He introduced his subject with the words: “Strategic nonviolent struggle is about seizing political power or denying it to others. It is not about pacifism, moral or religious beliefs.”
These words got my attention since my perception of “nonviolence” had been one influenced by Vietnam ere “flower-children, peacenik and draft dodgers.”
[…]
I was fortunate to hear a local presentation given in the early eighties by Gene Sharp, not long after the success of Solidarity led by Lech Wałęsa.
It was then that it occurred to me that these nonviolent concepts might one day prove applicable to, ah, well, any country.
Chapter One: Theory of Political Power
Political power is the totality of means, influences, and pressures–including authority, rewards, and sanction–available to achieve the objectives of the power-holder, especially those of government, the state, and those groups in oppositions.
–Dr Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action
[The Politics of Nonviolent Action is available at Powell’s (BT link)]
[…]
…When the needle on a continuum between “freedom and tyranny” (admittedly subjective terms) points strongly toward tyranny, there will be a desire for change be those who are oppressed.
What changes and how change will be attempted depend upon the oppressed people’s understanding of the nature and sources of power.
Dr Sharp describes two models to describe the basis for power in society–one monolithic, the other pluralistic.
The Monolithic Theory of Power
One model to explain political power, described by Dr. Gene Sharp, is referred to as the “monolithic” theory. […] It portrays power as being centered at the top of a solid, unchanging power structure [see Figure 1].
Occupiers of power portrayed by this monolithic model may change for any number of reasons, but the structure of power itself, that is, its pyramidal shell, is fixed as if in granite, irrespective of the power mix within or the will to change from without.
This theory assumes that the people are dependent upon the good will, support and decisions of the power holder and that the ruler determines how this power is to t be exercised. examples of despotic rulers who viewed election rigging as an integral part of the election process.
[…]
Authoritarian regimes are comfortable when their public accepts (or acquiesces under pressure to) this monolithic conceptualization of power.
The mere fact that they hold power gives them the authority to rule and dictates the obligation of the people to submit, the desires of the ruled notwithstanding.
The coercive power of the state under this model is viewed as a primary and legitimate means of enforcing compliance.
[…]
To undermine and remove tyranny through nonviolent conflict, one must move beyond the conceptual bounds of the monolithic power structure to identify and assess the actual distribution of power in all its forms.
While the monolithic model of power is a useful analytical tool to the study of how despots obtain, hold and pass the reins of power, using this model as a guide to thinking about political change places a severe limitation on the options that can be considered.
While it is important for “dreamers of change” to be aware of the monolithic model of power, in order to convert dreams into action they will find more success by substituting a model that views power, its attainment, and its loss in a completely different light–as one with “pluralism” as its guiding feature.
I see it as a huge mistake to limit our thinking to the monolithic model of power.
I agree with the author, Robert L Helvey, that an opposition movement is not likely to be successful at influencing government policy or affecting political change without an understanding of the pluralistic model of power.
The Pluralistic Model of Power
Another helpful model to understand the nature of power is referred to by Dr. Sharp as the pluralistic model [See Figure 2] Unlike the monolithic model, a solid, unchanging structure with power concentrated at the top, this theory portrays political power as being pluralistic and fragile.
Sources of power are identified as residing among the people throughout society, with the power holder able to exercise only that power that the people permit.
In other words, the ruler can only rule with the consent and cooperation of the people.[…]
…the important point of the pluralistic model of power is that, since the people provide the ruler with the sources of his power, then the people can also withdraw their consent to be ruled by withholding the sources of power they collectively provide to the regime.
According to Dr. Sharp there are six sources of power that are the key to understanding its pluralistic nature. As will be discussed below, it is these enumerated sources of power over which control, substantial influence, or neutralization is sought. […]
If you are interested in understanding how sources of power form the pillars that support any government, see the discussion of the six sources of power after the fold:
[…] These sources of power find expression in organizations and institutions, called “pillars of support”, discussed in Chapter 2.
Note: subject to be discussed in next diary Pillars of Support
1.Authority
Authority is the basis for claiming the right to rule and for the demanding of obedience from the ruled. Election results are often cited as the validation of authority to govern.
This is why so many authoritarian regimes insist on holding elections and then stuff the ballot boxes, intimidate the electorate, limit the campaign activities of opponents, and refuse to acknowledge or accept unfavorable outcomes.
Legitimacy is critically important to any government, and to be perceived as exceeding constitutional authority or being an outlaw regime has potentially serious consequences both internally and within the international community.
Internally, the loss of apparent legitimacy may become a major factor for the legitimization of political opposition.
Using the concept of “social contract,” political opposition may proclaim that if the government has committed a material breach of the constitution of a nation, the contract between the people and government has been violated, providing the basis for renouncing the obligations to obey, support and cooperate with the regime.
Externally, the loss of legitimacy by a regime may make the international community receptive to calls for economic and political sanctions against it. […]
2. Human Resources
The numbers of people who support, cooperate with, and yield to the ruler are an important determinant of a regime’s power. […]
…strategic nonviolent struggle cannot succeed without their active support and cooperation of the majority. In a struggle for democracy, numbers are important!
3. Skills and Knowledge
Governing is much more complicated then ever. At the beginning of the 21st century, the President of the United States of America is widely accepted as being the most powerful person in the world.
Yet, this most powerful ruler knows little or nothing
That’s for damn sure!!! (Continuing…)
about the complicated tasks of maintaining airplanes and flight schedules, administering maritime law, conducting criminal investigations, collecting taxes, developing war plans, distributing food, developing and servicing communications networks, and a host of other proficiencies.
The point being that skills and knowledge provided by the people permit governments, at all levels, to function. Without such contributions, a government collapses.
4. Intangible Factors
While it is difficult to measure their importance, intangible factors such as religion, attitudes toward obedience and submission, a sense of mission, or cultural norms can affect a ruler’s relationship with the public.
For example, there was a period in which there was an acceptance by many in some societies of the “divine right of kings,” the belief that rulers were agents of God on earth.
To disobey the ruler was thought to be disobedient to God. In other societies, such as Japan, the Emperor was considered to be God-king. Democracy would have been impossible under those circumstances.
And at the turn of the 21st century, there were instances of the merging of the Islamic religion and traditional political power in some governments.
While it is entirely appropriate to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” the debate must first be held over what exactly belongs to him.
After all, democracy is predicated upon the belief that any power the ruler has is “on loan” from the people.
Did the concepts discussed above remind you of any recent US history?
5. Material Resources
“He who pays the piper calls the tune” most certainly applies to politics. Control over the economy, property, natural resources, communications and transportation is an important aspect of the limits of power over the public. […]
…where censorship prevails, the lives of all those involved in all aspects of journalism are controlled or influenced by the government.
[…]
6. Sanctions
The ability to coerce compliance and support for government laws, including rules and regulations, is limited by the support, cooperation and acquiescence of the public.
Sanctions are used both to punish and to deter unacceptable behavior. …Denial or termination of employment, loss of promotions, travel restrictions (denial of passport), imposition of “eminent domain” of property, denial of access to water, and other sanctions can all be effectively employed to promote submission.
In some authoritarian regimes, the media practices self-censorship because the government has the capacity to close down publishers and news organizations through the control of the distribution of newsprint or the revocation of radio and television licenses. Such sanctions are commonplace.
Sanctions are the tools of every government. Most often they are used to curb anti-social behavior. At other times, they have been used as weapons to terrorize and to punish populations for political ends. […]
Summary
…The monolithic model portrays power as being exercised in an unchanging structure in which the people are dependent on the ruler.
The pluralistic model sees power being exercised quite differently, with the ruler being dependent upon the people.
The sources of power that the people provide to a ruler are also identified, and should these sources of power be withheld from the ruler, his ability to govern would be impossible.
Descriptively, the various structures that permit and sustain the day-to-day operations of government are referred to as its “pillars of support”. […]
When important pillars of support are sufficiently undermined, the government …collapses […]
I sincerely believe the methods of nonviolent struggle are our only real hope of changing government policies and ultimately changing the leadership of our government to one that truly represents “we the people”, and not only “we the people” of our country but “we the people” globally.
I hope we will invest our time wisely in pursuit of a true democracy for our country. We can not wait until another Martin Luther King, a Gandhi, or Lech Walensa appears on the scene. It is up to us!!!