From the TUC

Occupying everywhere: what does it mean for politicians (and unions)?

16 Oct 2011, by in Politics

Everyone – regardless of whether they’re involved – has their own explanation of the meaning of this weekend’s 950 worldwide “occupy” protests which have their roots variously in Egypt’s Tahrir Square, Greece’s Syntagma Square, Rothschild Boulevard in Israel and Wall Street in the USA. First prize in totally missing the point with breath-taking chutzpah must go to Foreign Secretary William Hague who told the BBC that he could understand popular concern about ”too many debts built up by states” – you’ll have noticed how many people at the Occupy events mentioned the need to pay down the deficit and engage in austerity policies (not)!

The numbers involved have not of course been huge (although 950 separate events on a single weekend does suggest some zeitgeist-style expression of shared concerns) and the almost studied reluctance to adopt a manifesto leaves a vacuum that many seek to fill, usually claiming that the demonstrators share the commentator’s concerns. But here are some first thoughts.

The global nature of the protest is undoubtedly an issue of itself, as Paul Mason has suggested on the BBC website: and as he says, it at least suggests the common understanding that if you set up tents in an urban area and express discontent, you will get media attention. There is at least a commonality of some of the concerns expressed – and more clearly than at almost any time since Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, the big banks are in the frame as the main culprit or target for anger.  Of course, as anyone who has organised a mass protests knows, the broader the annoyance people feel, the easier it is to get them to protest, so it is almost as unlikely that people will protest this widely on one issue as it would be unlikely that they could coalesce around a single demand.

The avoidance of a manifesto is, I think, more than merely clever ambiguity or vagueness. This is not a revolutionary movement aiming either to overthrow a specific elite (despite the clarity about the target for the anger), nor to achieve anything more specific than a society where equality is accorded higher priority, and where the future is remade as something to be looked forward to. It may, of course, develop into either, or fizzle out as winter hits the predominantly northern hemisphere.

But what the Occupy movement does by its very avoidance of concrete demands is that it poses a very direct question to politicians. And trade unionists. It asks what we are going to do to sort out the problems that the protesters are raising. And in the case of those who have set up tent cities, it gives concrete form to the otherwise unavoidable point that the protesters are ‘not going away’ until those answers are provided.

Since the banks are a key focus of the protests, solutions such as a Robin Hood Tax are a useful example of what might be offered up. It would not only release funding for the sort of issues that protesters are concerned about – public sector cuts (whatever William Hague pretends he thinks they’re after), global poverty and climate change. It would, increasingly saliently, redress the balance in the finance sector between the legalised gambling of high frequency, algorithm-driven speculation and the more popular function of providing finance for investment and housing. The EU draft directive on a financial transaction tax and the Gates report to the G20 summit on innovative financing for development mean this offer is already (almost) on the table.

But politicians and trade unions will need to go much further before the ‘Occupiers’ and their close cousins, the ‘Indignados’, ‘go away’. Wages need to increase rather than profits, so that ordinary people catch up with the rich elite (the 1%/99% divide that Occupy Wall Street drew attention to). Decent work needs to be on offer for future school-leavers and university graduates, as it so often isn’t in the wageless internships of the developed economies and the empty shops and full cafes of the MENA region. And people need the confidence that they can abandon public squares and return to the ballot box as the most effective venue for making decisions about the future of society and the economy.

3 Responses to Occupying everywhere: what does it mean for politicians (and unions)?

  1. Stuart
    Oct 16th 2011, 9:51 pm

    Nice article Owen, but I’d like to pick you up on your closing remarks:

    “And people need the confidence that they can abandon public squares and return to the ballot box as the most effective venue for making decisions about the future of society and the economy.”

    I think there has been a breakdown of trust at the ballot box, which people want restored, but I think – and I’m going on videos like that on the guardian website at the moment, as well talking to some friends here and in New York – as much as that people want ‘real democracy’ i.e. greater participation in “decisions about the future of society and the economy”. I take your point about people reading their own wishes into the movements, but I’m pretty sure I’m right in sensing this, however diffuse the wish for and idea of ‘real democracy’ might be. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that while a miserly 18% of people trust Ed and Ed on the economy (in the latest Indie/ComRes poll), only 30% of people trust Dave and George.

  2. Owen Tudor

    Owen Tudor
    Oct 17th 2011, 5:19 am

    Stuart, I don’t disagree with your point: I didn’t express myself clearly. I think you are right that many people are disillusioned with the voting process. Some people therefore don’t vote (although not all abstainers are doing so because of disillusionment) and some people vote without confidence in the outcome. But what I meant to say was that politicians – and unions – need to do things that make sure people regain their trust in electoral politics (bearing in mind that parliamentary election turnouts consistently over 60% also implies that many people still do trust the system: certainly more than in the USA for instance).

  3. Occupying everywhere: what does it mean for politicians (and unions)? | Coalition of Resistance Against Cuts & Privatisation
    Nov 3rd 2011, 1:31 pm

    [...] From TUC Touchstone blog [...]

TUC