In describing the stages of a winning strategy for any nonviolent activism, Mahatma Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Now that the Occupy Baluwatar movement has begun to lose steam before it could turn up the heat on the government, I wonder at which one of the four stages the movement began to peter out.[break]
As the ardor ebbs down, people associated with the movement are cagey about comparing Occupy Baluwatar with the global Occupy movement, though the name and initial fervor leaves no doubt about their aspirations.
Before I sat down to write this article, I had a brief discussion with a friend who has been actively involved with the movement. Despite the loftiness of the name, Occupy Baluwatar, he said, never aimed to attain a status comparable to the symbolical Occupy as we know it today, and urged me to look simply at the word’s denotative meaning, that is, the act of taking over a venue, in this case, to stage a protest.
But comparisons, we know, need not always be judgmental. Rather than look at success or failure and good or bad, we can also compare the two phenomena to understand their different facets and significances.
You can call it an overstatement but I see the global Occupy movement as a revolution that came closest to fulfilling the Marxist prophesy that the workers of the world will one day unite to free themselves from capitalist oppression and create a world run by and for the working class.
Photoes: Keshab Thoker/Republica Files
Although the hundreds and thousands who gathered worldwide on October 15, 2011 to stage demonstrations – mostly in the capitals and financial hubs of their respective countries – may not have thought of themselves as Communists or proletariats, but no one can deny that their anger was largely directed at capitalist forces, represented by large corporations, at whose hands they felt oppressed.
In an article that appeared in Al Jazeera’s website, Timothy Zick, a professor of law at a US university, writes: Although their message has not been conveyed in the most explicit terms, the occupiers’ general complaint seems to be something like the following: American democracy has failed the people by facilitating a wildly unequal distribution of wealth, diminishing opportunities for future advancement and prosperity by all citizens, and allowing corporate interests to hijack democratic institutions and processes.
A peek at the most popular slogans of the global Occupy movement proves that Zick’s assessment was right. While “We are the 99%” sought to intimidate the 1 percent who controls most of the wealth in any country, “No Bulls, No Bear, Only Pigs” ridiculed those who engage in shady dealings in share markets. Similarly, “People over profits” took a swipe at corporate greed, and “Not anti-Capital, just anti-Theft” highlighted the corporate reluctance to pay their fair share in taxes.
In light of these issues, we can hardly say that the global Occupy was a spontaneous movement as it’s been portrayed by many. All the issues smoldered in public debate long enough to reach a boiling point and then spilled onto the street.
And once out on the street, the occupiers seemed determined about not putting up with business as usual and not retreating until there were clear signs that things would change for the better.
Only genuine frustrations simmering over time generate that sort of inner push which endures and draws support for a movement of the scale of Occupy.
The movement soon spread throughout the world because the sentiment that resonated was that governments everywhere were in the clutches of corporations that wielded unbridled power to influence policies to suit them, engaged not only in immoral but also illegal practices with impunity.
Reflecting this global perception was the fact that the largest group of occupiers was not those who camped at the Wall Street in New York. Spain’s Madrid with 500,000 and Italy’s Rome with 200,000 far exceeded the 30,000 occupiers on Wall Street.
And there was a solid reason for the astounding turnouts in Madrid and Rome. Spain and Italy have the highest figure for unemployment among the European nations. At 58.6% and 56.9% respectively, nearly half of the countries’ populations are without jobs. It’s equally interesting to note that Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway, where very few gathered to express solidarity with the global Occupy on October 15, boast of the highest employment record at 78%, 78% and 75% respectively.
Considering these facts, it becomes clear that there was more to the global Occupy movement than just sloganeering, branding and impulsive activism.
Thanks to Occupy Baluwatar, Nepalis also knew that it was possible to draw a large number of people from different walks of life for an apolitical cause.
But its sudden fizzling-out also has a lesson: Sustained public debate, rather than passionate calls for spur-of-the-moment decision to act, is necessary to sustain movements that aspire for big changes.
Because, after passion fizzles out – as it does, sooner or later – people will ask, “Why am I here?”
It’s possible that those who gave up on Occupy Baluwatar didn’t find answers that could compel them to go on.
The writer is a copy editor at Republica.
Related story
Israel plans to occupy swathe of south Lebanon after war
