INSTITUTIONAL
POLITICS, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND NONVIOLENCE
KEY
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Presentation
at “Democratic Transition in the MENA Region: From
Revolution to Active Citizenship, Nonviolence and Regional Solidarity
- Strategic Dialogue to enhance regional cooperation between emerging
civil society actors” November, 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 2012 Gammarth,
Tunisia
Francesco
Martone
The
transformation of consciousness, and precisely not through dogma or
violence, is the inaugural moment of discovering new worlds―not by
willing what does not exist but by seeing what is unfolding.”
(H.Dabashi: “ the Arab Spring: the End of Post-colonialism”,
2012)
“We
are not starving, we want democracy”, a Tunisian
woman activist once told us at a dinner meeting when we
asked her to explain the connection between the uprising in
Tunisia and almost the whole of the Maghreb, and the rise in
food prices globally. That statement was a clear indication of the
need for any outside observer of the groundbreaking historical
>> process that unfurled throughout the Middle East and
was then known as the “Arab Spring”, to make an effort and not
offer plain cause-and- effect motivations to explain the outburst of
rebellion and mobilization. Cause-effect analyses are part of a
worldview characterized by mere geopolitical constructions, where
people are always victims of grand schemes or superior dynamics
beyond their reach – be it the distorted dynamics of global
neoliberalism or of superpower power games - rather than moved by strong determination and awareness to reclaim their public role as
active citizens. I have since then tried to apply a model of reading
processes of political change under the lens of “agency”, of who
is the “agent”; and thinking about how to deconstruct those
cultural mindsets that narrow or ignore the “agency” of citizens
and social movements, thereby denying their potential to be
active subjects of political transformation.
This
is the first principle that I try to put at the center of my
political activities and actions, as a human rights activist,
currently working with indigenous peoples ( a major challenge that
involves also a lot of cultural mediation and decolonizing of thought
and action) , and as an active “politician”, first sitting in
Parliament and now engaged in international politics in Italy and as a co-promoter of the Mediterranean Cultural Parliament. Hence, the recognition of “agency” is a first step towards
characterizing individuals and collectives not exclusively as
stakeholders under the classical concept of “good governance”,
but as “rights-holders” reclaiming their space in
collective decision-making and in the construction of a better and
fairer society where dignity is the key pillar.
The
recognition of being rights-holders and rights-bearers brings with it
the acknowledgement of dignity as the main goal and
responsibility as the key value. Each individual as a citizen bears
the responsibility of contributing to the advancement and improvement
of the living conditions – the dignity - of the other. Hence,
the connection between the recognition of agency, the definition of
citizens as rights-holders, and the recognition of the other is the
driving force behind political activism. “Je suis l'autre”,
as the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas used to say.
You subsequently get involved in a movement as a reaction to an
unjust state of things, as the result of emulation, or as a natural
consequence of your being a citizen and in recognition of the fact
that the right to dignity of the other is part of your own same right
to dignity.
The
initial motivation might differ, what I consider crucial is the
capacity of creating processes, enabling tools and spaces to allow
anybody to reclaim his or her role in shaping a collective present
and building a collective future.
Here
comes the second block of conceptual frameworks that should permeate
social action and political change, notably the definition of the
landscape and the public space within which change can be achieved.
It goes without saying that without addressing the root causes of
injustice that define - directly or by default - the public space, or
even transform it into a privatized space, no matter whether
you recognize the principle of “agency” this will remain
suspended and unable to generate any transformational outcome. Hence
the need to place our political action in a broader scene, trying to
articulate the links between the urgency for change in our specific
space, and the need to address the root causes of injustice and the
potential threats to the creation of a new public space.
We
go back to the initial issue of agency, and the proper analysis of
root causes of injustice. For instance, any action at the local and
national level, say for instance to reclaim real democracy or
community and public control over the “commons”, (water, food,
culture for instance) will have no impact if it is not connected to
common platforms with other movements challenging the power of
private enterprises and of market institutions. This is the case with
Italy, where any effort to reclaim the commons through the
instruments of direct democracy - as has been
the case with the public consultation on water that rejected
water privatization - has to be brought to the European level, to
challenge the key rules set by the European Commission and the
European Central Bank on the terms of debt reduction and cuts in
public expenditure by means of commodification of the commons.
This
is also the case with the need to constructively challenge the
concept of “conditionality” , which risks undermining effective
processes towards real democracy. Consider for instance the
“more for more” approach attached to EU policies towards the
Maghreb, according to which more money would be made available
in exchange for more democracy and more good governance. The risk is creating a perverse incentive to accelerate formal democracy
without strengthening real democracy and the capacity of
“subterranean politics” to engage in a collective endeavour.
Another
important opportunity is represented by the announced intention of
the government of Ecuador to collaborate with the Tunisian government in renegotiating the country's foreign debt. The Tunisian government had earlier announced the intention of launching an audit on Tunisian debt, as a way to reclaim public
citizen and democratic control over finance and the economy.
Challenging a hurdle to social development in this
context generates the tools to strengthen the direct engagement
of citizens, make institutions more accountable and identify
modalities and options for political solutions to financial problems.
Hence
a critical analysis of external factors that might catalyze or affect
opportunities for real change is required. This is somehow reflected
in the most recent development in the US Occupy movement that is now
morphing in into the Strike the Debt movement.
In
my country, Italy, challenging the Fiscal Compact (i.e. The package
of debt reduction and austerity measures that Italy, together with
other countries in Southern Europe, i.e. Spain and Greece had to
ratify) does not necessarily mean reiterating as a mantra its
unjust and contradictory character, but rather engaging in actions
aimed at overcoming its assumptions, and proposing concrete solutions
to the dire living conditions of those affected. For instance
resisting the austerity dogma by launching public campaigns for
basic income through the mobilization of wide sectors of civil
society, and social movements and the use of direct democracy.
In
a word, the second underlying principle is the internalization of the
local-national-global character of any political action. An action
that contributes to the further determination of the “agency” of
its proponents and goes beyond an ideological assumption to address
the real needs of people and proposing solutions to reclaim dignity.
The
third principle is nonviolence, meant to be a modality to create
links and exchanges, recognizing conflict as a key element in any
living democracy but at the same time metabolizing it, deconstructing
conflict into positive efforts to create linkages and solidarity
among actors. Nonviolence presumes a different relationship
between citizens and power, citizens and the state. In a word,
I agree with the suggestion made by Hannah Arendt, in her analysis of
the French and American revolutions which is quoted in a very
illuminating interview to Arab writer Hamid Dabashi on Jadalyya,
according to which the political space is a “haven from
violence” rather than a systemization of violence.
What
can be therefore the relationship between the common space
created and reclaimed by citizens and the public space occupied by
institutions, or between what a renowned sociologist Mary
Kaldor calls “subterranean politics” and “institutional
politics” ? Keeping in mind that the definition of this
relationship is also key to creating a nonviolent approach to
systemic change?
In
order to answer these questions I will use a concept that is
dear to “post-colonial studies”, that of a third space or
“hybridity”. In my activity as a member of Parliament I have
always believed in the autonomy of civil society and social movements
and in the potential of cross-fertilization between them and
institutional politics, not only in terms of achieving specific
issue-related goals but also in terms of “democratizing politics”
and “politicizing the public space”. The principle of the
recognition of autonomy of social movements and civil society
is key to ensuring a lively, real and dynamic democracy. Hence
the need to develop new concepts and practices that would define the
relationship between the two. The concept of a third space helps in
defining the landscape in which institutional politics and citizens'
power meet and interact in a less ideological and more pragmatic
manner. In a third space, different models can coexist, because what
counts is the highest common denominator. What counts is not so much
the form but the content, that common political element that would
allow different cultural approaches and world-views to proceed
towards the same direction. No shortcut is allowed, however, neither
that of rejecting institutional politics (with the subsequent risk of
authoritarian populism), nor that of accepting cooption. . The
challenge is to create a space where actors meet, share common goals,
but retain their very nature, by re-elaborating it in the process.
In a word, building real democracy by practising it and retaining the
right to confront critically or to mobilize outside of that third
space. Civil disobedience and nonviolent direct actions are some of
the possible modalities, as suggested by the Occupy movement,
the experiences in Tahrir Square and the Indignados. The
way you engage also becomes a political statement
and content.
And
what kind of action would be possible in concrete terms in such a
hybrid space? Revolution? Cooption? Critical engagement? Dialogue?
Participation?
Again,
let me quote a very intense debate generated some years ago
between two philosophers I admire a lot, Slavoj Zizek and the British
philosopher Simon Critchley, author of what I consider a key book on
political engagement titled: “Infinitely Demanding: Ethics of
Commitment, Politics of Resistance”. In an exchange of
letters in a US magazine, Zizek accused Critchley of not
contemplating the conquest of power in his proposal to resist power.
Critchley responded by saying that in an authoritarian view the
conflict in politics is between the power of the State or the absence
of power. He rejected the statement that these are the only two
solutions in fact. Real politics – he said – is the movement
between these two poles, and occurs in what he described as an
interstitial space within the State. These interstitial spaces are
not given or pre-existing, they are created by political practice. In
a nutshell I believe that our commitment today is that of defining,
cultivating, enriching the interstitial distance between the power of
the State and the absence of power, between critique and the
construction of alternatives. What struck me in observing the
mobilizations in Tunisia and in Tahrir Square was the clear evidence
that those engaged were not necessarily aiming at conquering power,
they were exerting their power as citizens and people. And I found
many resemblances with the modalities of mobilization of indigenous
peoples in Latin America. The difference between the two
concepts is easier to explain in the French language and is the
difference between “pouvoir” and “puissance”. I believe that
political action, and also the action of anybody engaged in
institutional politics should be that of restricting the sphere of
“pouvoir” , and contributing to enlarge that of “puissance”,
notably practicing the paradox of his or her obsolescence.
This means that those who sit in power positions should always have
in mind that they are transient, they are part of a broader process
of social, political, economic transformation, which does not exhaust
itself in exerting power, but rather in nurturing a vibrant and
critical society.
Going
back to our “third space”, a famous Indian post-colonial
thinker, Homi Bhabha wrote in 1990 about the concept of hybridity,
according to which “ in any political struggle new spaces are open
but if we continue to link them to old principles then we would never
be able to participate in a creative and productive manner”. Hence
“when a new situation or alliance is created, this would mean that
our own principles will have to be extended and re-elaborated.” This
means engaging in a continuous effort to go beyond traditional
approaches or simply importing external patterns but rather
constantly searching. “Questioning while walking”, a Zapatista
would say. This is the future challenge.
