Written by Armando Chapelliquen   

A few weeks ago, I began to examine the efforts of two distinctly different forms of political action, the course of voting and electoral politics, referred to as polling; and the course of rallies and demonstrations, referred to as protesting. When understood as opposites on a spectrum of political action, one can examine the success or failure of recent political movements based upon the balancing of protest and polling politics.

As stated when I first introduced this topic, there is no single correct balance of protest and polling politics. What works in Occupy may not work in Wisconsin, Egypt, or Spain. That being said, there must be some way of evaluating the success of a movement, regardless of its location. In the case of the Occupy movement, it is first necessary to first understand the larger methodology of the movement, as recognized by the previous observations I have made as well as through conversations with Occupiers.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the Occupy movement represents a very clear break from the traditional polling politics with which most of our political establishment is enamored. Early on, the Occupy movement continued to impress observers with their ingenious and innovative ways of protesting and reaching out to the public. At the peak of public interest, the Occupy movement enjoyed support as verified by public opinion polls and talking heads. However as the occupations wore on, the collective attention span of the media and the public began to ask the question “What now?”. The charm of the occupations began to be smeared by accounts of violence and sexual assault in occupations, clashes with police, and a quickly bored public. There was a desire for something new. Something fresh to grasp the quickly shrinking attention span of the American public.

With the winter soon to follow, the coordinated evictions began.

However Occupy remained defiant and its supporters, now without a permanent encampment, changed strategies. Some sought to have public demonstrations in the parks when permitted by police. Others returned to their homes to rebuild Occupy in localized versions. It is at this point that the narrative can vary depending on your perspective. If the goal of Occupy was to build a national movement that would yield substantive political, social, and economic reforms, then the movement has failed. However, if the goal of Occupy was to wake up a generation of citizens feeling estranged from the structures of power that currently constrain them, then Occupy has undoubtedly succeeded.

The first account of Occupy is a much larger goal that I believe requires one to tread both the polling and protest routes of political action. The second is a goal that can be accomplished entirely without the polling political sphere. It should therefore be obvious why Occupy has so easily accomplished the second task but failed to do the first.

This should not be considered a condemnation on the movement. When one removes the delusions of what Occupy might turn into and focus instead on what it truly has been, then it becomes possible to see where Occupy will be in the future.

As a leaderless and horizontalist movement, all are equals. There is no oppression by charismatic or power hungry leaders. There is no opportunity for any group to try and “take over the movement” as there are in fact no existing power structures one can usurp. This is good and bad. It is good for the obvious reason that tyranny becomes practically impossible. However, it is also bad because it prevents any one person to lead a particular initiative. Consider the following example.

A passionate environmentalist arrives at a local Occupy encampment in the mid-fall (during the movement’s zenith). The environmentalist decides to form a working group on environmentalism. At the first meeting, a variety of self-absorbed individuals derail discussion on the agenda prepared by the environmentalist who formed the group. Because of the equal standing of every person, the irrelevant statements must be tolerated. The result: the working group is ineffective and incapable of accomplishing its goals.

This scenario is not entirely made up. In fact, it is situations similar to this one that have been a recurring problem at the protests. While protestors themselves have gradually stepped up to prevent these sorts of conflicts, the problems continue. What has often resulted from situations like the one above is a splintering of groups. Individuals passionate about cause X or Y go off and attempt to built their own environment of discussion and reform. As a result, Occupy as a whole remains fractured. In the meantime, the attention of the public has drifted off to the next shiny news story.

The importance of organization can not be understated. At the police stand-off on Penns Landing on July 1, the police retained a solid Roman-style phalanx. There was no question and no hesitation about what needed to be done on their side: “Hold this line”. By contrast, as the mass of protestors approached the police line, various contradictory mic checks were called out suggesting courses of actions varying from pushing through the line, getting off the road, and retreating off the bridge. It was pandemonium. While it is important to have democratic discourse when discussing topics of improving the world, such discourse is burdensome and ultimately damaging when it occurs in front of a militarized blockade.

Why is this the case? How can one really believe that there are certain times when democratic discourse is overly demanding?

The Occupy movement is much larger than the people in a park. It is much more significant than any grievance any one person or group of people raise. When considering the goal of changing the political, social, and economic structures in place, the most important people to the success of Occupy are not the Occupiers. The most important people to the success of the movement are the people beyond the parks. The under-employed students, the shrinking middle class, the overworked lower class. Simply put, the people who do not have the time to participate in the protests are the most important people to the success of the movement. In fact, it is that same group, that Silent Majority, that is the greatest asset to the success of any movement.

If these people were to witness the police stand off on the evening news after a long and stressful day of work, they would simply see an organized force and a rabble of confusion. It is hard to believe that any of those people would look at the two sides and favor the disorganization and uncertainty of the confused marchers. What brought people together at the peak of Occupy was not simply the horizontalist structure, the originality of the protesters’ tactics, or even the well-deserved anger at the wealthiest 1%. What brought people to support Occupy in their homes and their communities was the belief that “The whole world was watching”. There was a hope that the movement could create the substantial changes that most Americans already support. However, given the structure of the Occupy movement from the beginning, that hope was doomed to fail.

It was that structure, that inability to handle internal conflicts, that inevitably slow advance on issues, and that lack of cohesion in the face of conflict with outside forces that reduced the public support of the Occupy movement. As the National Gathering was convened in Philadelphia, it was still clear that many people had very different perceptions of what Occupy should be doing and of what it is truly capable.

Occupy was never meant to change anything structural. Its purpose has been much more fundamental than that. In our age of instantaneous communication and media coverage, a skepticism and frustration with the social, economic, and political systems seems almost natural. However, this frustration has hardly been discussed beyond the face value statements of “X party sucks. I vote Y party”. “Substantive debate” has little to no context anymore. Occupy broke the back and forth rhythm of Democrat-Republican party system. Occupy provided a venue where deeper discussions took place. The blame was not on one party or another, but rather on an entire system. There was a shift in political dialogue, but even that is not its greatest success.

A whole generation of people are caring about the future in their own disparate pockets of this country (and this world). At the same time, the economic, social, and political systems in place strangle even the dreams of the most idealistic. Occupy and its national gathering have given those same people what they needed most: a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. In isolation, these people may feel despair and unable to organize; but together, there is a sense of belonging and perhaps even a blind hope that something can be done. It is this remaining hope of those who still continue to believe that can not be squandered.

Occupy’s significance will forever be as a catalyst. A great deal of protesters arrived in Philadelphia as part of an organization, whether that group was the Granny Peace Brigade, InterOccupy, AllintheRed, or CodePink. While Occupy created a sense of community for a large part of the American population, it must be these organizations (and the many like them) that stand up and direct organized efforts on specific political issues. While some may prefer environmental issues, others can pursue student debt. The environment of Occupy makes it possible for both to meet and converse with one another. However, while Occupy’s own internal structure is conducive to building a place for dialogue, it is not the ideal setting for directing a future course of action. Occupy provided a spark for people who cared about the future of the world; it did not provide the means to get there; that tremendous task and responsibility is up to all of us.

However, for “us” to reach that point, there must be an “us” to represent. The goal must be to reach out to the people whose hope has long since faded. By reinvigorating the hope of people from across the economic and social spectrum, it can once again become possible to organize campaigns and work towards reforming the structures of political power. For such campaigns to be successful, they require a large enough support base. It is that support base that all must be working to build as we move forward.

-------------
Armando Chapelliquen is a recent graduate of Moravian College, where he graduated summa cum laude and received Honors in Political Science and Philosophy for his undergraduate thesis, "Huntington, Impact, and Occupy: The Makings of a New Global Paradigm". His current work revolves heavily around running UnSilentMajority.Org, a site committed to bringing new voices and perspectives to the larger political discourse in the United States and around the world.