Direct action

Direct action is a controversial campaigning tactic because even peaceful direct action can be highly provocative. It can be seen as a last resort tactic, when other aspects of a campaign strategy have failed (or it is assumed that they will fail) - although for some campaigns and campaigners it is a central feature of their approach.

There is a thin line between demonstrations, stunts and direct action, but for our purposes here, we distinguish it by referring it to as a tactic that is not necessarily symbolic, but involves a deliberate disruption of a status quo.

In the Campaigning Handbook Mark Lattimer argues that:

‘Direct actions, as impressive though they may be, rarely secure permanent change. But in disturbing the status quo and establishing in its place, however briefly, an alternative, they can prove that change is not only possible but within our grasp."

There’s also a very interesting article and debate about the effectiveness of direct action on the F-Word website.

Direct action per se is not necessarily illegal, but the law is certainly complex on this subject. Many historic, landmark campaigns (including the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement in the US)  involved direct action that broke the law at the time - and with hindsight people generally believe that these campaigns challenged laws that are now almost universally accepted as unjust.

This does not mean that campaigners should simply break any law they see as unjust. Campaigners should ensure they understand the laws relating to using direct action, and their implications (see also Lawful Excuse).