We need to win campaigns, not just arguments

Ask anyone to list the most inspiring campaigns ever and it likely that some familiar movements will come up. But they are at risk of being sanitised and co-opted by establishment accounts of history, to the detriment of our understanding of how change happens.

An example of this was at the TUC’s ‘March for the Alternative’ in March 2011, when Labour Party leader Ed Miliband declared, "We come in the tradition of movements that have marched in peaceful but powerful protest for justice, fairness and political change" before name-checking the suffragettes, the civil-rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement. His statement is only partially true: all three movements used the public demonstration, but only as one of their tactics. None of the movements Ed Miliband mentioned were successful through marching alone.

Demonstrations are an important tool for influencing public opinion. Three of the biggest demonstrations of the last decade in the UK were the anti-war march on 15 February 2003, the Make Poverty History march on 2 July 2005 and the ‘March for the Alternative’ on 26 March 2011. It is important to note that every one of these processions was followed by marked swings in public opinion. Disillusion with the Iraq War passed 50 per cent three days after the February 2003 march. Concern for global poverty peaked in July 2005. The Conservatives fell 10 points behind in the polls in early April 2011, just days after the mass march against their programme.

One explanation for this is that the very act of building for a demonstration gives grassroots activists an excuse to talk to family, friends and strangers about the issues they care about. Whether they attend or not, those people will then see the demonstration reported in the media and recall the conversation they had. In the case of very large marches, it is possible that a majority of people in the country know at least someone who took part – thus making the arguments more personal. Another possible reason – complementary to the others – is that the sense of togetherness fostered by the street demonstration reassures people that they are not alone in their views. This can be built upon as the perspectives of campaigners make their way into the press, thereby amending the media narrative.

The problem comes when campaign strategists confuse winning arguments with winning campaigns. Demonstrations are useful in helping us to influence public debate, but they become truly effective when they are seen as a demonstration of intent – a warning that if those in power do not cede some of that power, the people will claim it for themselves.

I think of demonstrations as comparable to the All-Blacks performing the 'haka' before a rugby game; it is designed both to prepare for the confrontation ahead and to give the opponent an impression of what the movement could be capable of. Of course, on occasion, the very fact that people have organised means that they win some concessions. The great community organiser Saul Alinsky has an explanation for this when he advises in 'Rules for Radicals' that "the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself". But the demonstration cannot be the be-all-and-end-all of the campaign.

Sadly, the public demonstration is the greatest protest escalation that many campaigners in the UK will ever engage in. Some do not even go that far, and see a critical press release as a peak of confrontation. We can learn from those campaigns of the past that we admire that much more is needed.

Perhaps the greatest analyst of such historical ‘people power’ movements is the US professor Gene Sharp, whose work has been used by liberation movements from Serbia to Egypt with considerable success. In his most influential pamphlet 'From Dictatorship to Democracy', he calls upon movements to identify the ‘Achilles heel’ of the government they are challenging and thereby to undermine the regime’s sources of power. Only then are concessions given which can win campaigns. If those concessions are not given (or even if they are) the movement must be willing to follow through.

Of course, it is a truism that no government, past or present, could survive if enough people organised effectively against it. After all, every government requires people to obey its orders. If enough people refuse to obey those orders, the rulers cannot rule, and will usually cede enough power in order to hold on to their positions. So it is that campaigns are won. Although this is obvious, it is too seldom reflected in campaign plans. Yet it is a simple truth which shows us that any campaign is winnable in theory. In light of this, the question we must ask ourselves is: ‘why don’t we win more often?’

Tim Gee is the author of 'Counterpower: Making Change Happen’, New Internationalist, £9.99. It is available online from the New Internationalist shop.