Coordinating Different Approaches At National Actions

Since the national action at Nurrungar in 1989 and particularly since the
AIDEX action in 1991, there has been considerable debate about how activists
should respond to the difficulties which arise when people with a diverse
range of political perspectives participate in national events.  Some of the
lessons for the nonviolence network which are clear to me are as follows.

Firstly, there may be some national actions in which it is counterproductive
for the network to be involved.  This may be the case in those circumstances
in which involvement distracts activists from sustained and
strategically-focussed local campaigns.  Most of the major national 'peace'
events (including AIDEX and the US base actions) are of only marginal
political significance because they are not strategically integrated into
ongoing campaigns; they do little more than raise public awareness for a
short time. While the network remains relatively small, I think it is
especially important to make strategic choices about the campaigns in which
we get involved.

Secondly, in order to have a decisive impact on the tone of any national
action the network must organise it entirely.

Thirdly, in those cases in which the network does not organise the action but
in which members of it choose to become involved, these members may aim to
influence the tone of the action by being actively involved in the
organisation which takes place in the relevant states beforehand.  This
should include conducting nonviolence workshops.

Fourthly, members of the network should plan and organise their involvement
thoroughly.  For example, affinity groups should be formed (if they do not
exist already), a set of agreements should be reached about what the group or
groups will undertake, and the logistical arrangements (particularly in
relation to a self-reliant food supply, cooking utensils, accommodation,
communications equipment and vehicles) should be completed with appropriate
attention to detail. Ideally, they should arrive at the event before it is
due to commence.

Fifthly, the nonviolent groups should decide what services they will offer to
other activists at the national event.  This may include nonviolence
workshops, nonviolence resources, liaison services with the local Aboriginal
community (if the event takes place where a nonviolent group is active) and,
perhaps, counselling and debriefing sessions.  If the organisers of the
national event require assistance, general support in the form of labour at
the site or the loan of specialised equipment may be offered.  In my view,
nonviolence workshops are the most useful service we can offer at such events
because they give people we normally cannot reach the opportunity to learn
about nonviolence.  This should help to develop the nonviolence network as
well.

Sixthly, while it may still be possible to conduct mass nonviolent actions at
future national environment events, recent experience suggests that this is
less likely to be the case at future national 'peace' actions.   Therefore,
especially at the latter events, nonviolent groups should encourage the
organising group to adopt a decentralised decision-making process and an
approach which discourages the idea that 'everyone' at the national event
will be involved in 'mass actions'.  If the organising group is disinclined
to adopt this approach, the groups should declare their intention to
encourage it at the site once activists arrive, preferably at an early mass
meeting.  There are good reasons for encouraging this approach.

Given the variety of political perspectives usually represented at national
actions, there is little basis for expecting to achieve a genuine consensus
about how any mass action might be conducted.  For that reason, it would be
better if groups planned their own actions and a working group (made up of
one person from each group) was used to coordinate them.

At first glance, some people might consider this proposal to be divisive but,
in my view, it is simply a creative response to the reality that there are
many perspectives of social change represented at any national action.  For
example, it is quite obvious that the particular conception of nonviolence to
which I adhere requires certain behaviours with which some activists do not
agree.  And while I respect their right to hold a different view, I also
presume that they do not expect me to violate a conscientiously held set of
principles in order to reach some form of meaningless 'consensus'.  Nor do I
expect them to do so.

It should be quite straightforward to organise a program spread over the
several days of the event so that groups which want a separate time and place
in order to conduct their actions can have it.  This is simply an extension
of the principle that women's space for actions has been recognised and
respected at past national events such as AIDEX.  Extending this arrangement
simply recognises the diversity within the larger group while providing a
framework within which everyone can cooperate.

Of course, there may be groups which want to plan secret actions and which do
not wish to identify a time and place for their actions to the members of the
coordinating group.  In this case, the plans of those groups which want to
conduct non-secretive actions should be identified on the program and other
groups should be asked to respect their nominated time and place.  Needless
to say, those groups which plan non-secretive actions should be asked to
agree not to interfere with the secret actions.

It should be possible to identify an appropriate combination of groups by
asking individuals (who are not already involved in an affinity group) to
step forward and nominate the type of group in which they would like to be
involved so that others with a similar interest can then join them.  If there
are too many people interested in a particular approach for them to form one
group, they may organise themselves into several.  In this way, a variety of
women's groups, anarchist groups and socialist groups as well as various
types of nonviolence groups might be established.  If I was in this position,
I might specify that I wanted to work with people who were interested in a
type of nonviolence which respected all parties (including the police) and
which did not use secrecy or sabotage.  Or I might offer to conduct a two-day
workshop for new activists during which they would learn about nonviolence
and then plan an action of their own.

If the nonviolent groups are not able to gain consensus on the above
proposal, then, if the type of mass actions conducted at AIDEX is any guide
to the nature of future ones, I think the nonviolent groups should decline to
be involved in any of them.  They should either choose another location for
their actions - where the risk of deliberate disruption is minimised or
eliminated - or decide to provide some other service such as workshops.  In
my view, the direct participation of nonviolence groups in undisciplined
actions sends the wrong message about the nature of nonviolence and is highly
counterproductive.  This plays into the hands of activists who may even wish
to discredit nonviolence.  I am no longer willing to participate in actions
with people who do not share my commitment to nonviolence.  I am interested
in being politically effective and showing people how they can also be
politically effective; I cannot do this by sacrificing important norms of
nonviolence in response to calls for an artificial 'group unity'.

If the large group agrees to the proposal to coordinate actions by affinity
groups and the nonviolent groups find that there are new activists at the
event who are interested in learning about the conceptions of nonviolence
held by activists within the network, then it would be useful if the
nonviolence groups were equipped to provide the appropriate workshop(s).  In
addition, it would be desirable to provide opportunities for these new
activists to plan and participate in creative and disciplined actions
(perhaps even a 'large action') involving the new activists and network
activists only. In the light of all of the above, it may be appropriate for
some network activists or groups to concentrate their involvement at any
national event around workshops and one or two well planned actions.

While it is possible that actions undertaken by groups with a disciplined
commitment to nonviolence may attract little media attention at national
events of this nature, the approach suggested above is likely to achieve the
more important goals of empowering the activists involved (with a reduced
risk of even temporary 'burnout'), of increasing the number of activists in
the nonviolence network, and of spreading a better quality message about the
conception of nonviolence that we are trying to promote.
Robert J. Burrowes

Eds Note: This article was written and received before the latest Nurrungar
actions.