Head-to-head debate
The MacDebate co-presidents are at odds for protesting this week.
Violetta Nikolskaya & Sumeet Khanna
Co-Presidents, McMaster Debating Society
Q: Occupy Wall Street is quickly spreading as a movement. Is protesting an effective method of combating injustice, or do the drawbacks distort the message?
VN: Right now, we find ourselves witnessing perhaps the closest example of what Marx foresaw when he wrote that the proletariat masses would one day come together to protest against the rich bourgeoisie. However, there is one significant difference: the movement lacks true class consciousness and unity. During the G20 protests in Toronto, the streets were divided between two groups. The first was a group of violent rioters who loitered the streets and vandalized the city, causing a great deal of damage to the local economy. (Many small, independent businesses had to be shut down for the weekend). The second group were citizens who protested against the rioters. It attempted to show that not everyone who advocates for justice and civil liberties carries out their actions in an appropriate manner. This occurred once again during the London Riots; there was an overwhelmingly underrepresented group of people who supported the police and organized themselves into cleaning groups. The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests, which include the many similar movements across the globe, have now divided themselves into the "We are the 53 per cent (or 51 per cent)" and the "We are the 99 per cent" movements. In the first group are those who feel that it is the responsibility of individuals to advance their social mobility through work. Those in the second group feel there will never be an opportunity to advance under current corporate structures. No fragmented movement can create enough of an impact to serve the purpose that unites them all: equality and justice.
SK: There is a systematic problem with the global economy. Large corporations, like those found on Wall Street, fund the politicians that regulate them, evade conviction for their criminal behaviours, and block alternative forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They hold unrestrained political power over governments around the world and espouse a crony capitalism that serves their interests, rather than the interests of the other 99 per cent. Violetta points to the history of violence in recent protests. Recognize, though, that Occupy Toronto has issued several public statements urging protesters to practice non-violence. The movement is striving to maintain public legitimacy via peaceful protests. Indeed, the arrests that have recently been made in the New York movement have come from curfew and traffic violations – hardly violent in my opinion. Violetta also worries about the fragmented nature of the movement, but fails to see the value that this holds. OWS has launched a global conversation that will, in the coming months and years, mediate differing points of view and produce balanced, progressive policy initiatives. Perhaps OWS is fragmented, but it does have overarching goals. It highlights several issues, including the corruption of Wall Street, the failure of the government to regulate the system, and the power abuse carried out by law enforcement bodies worldwide.
VN: These “overarching” goals are so vast and so different between countries and groups and cities that they will fail to be recognized and accepted by the globalized corporations they aim to change. One solid voice with specific, global goals would be an effective way to deal with the problems rooted in globalization. Discourse is clearly important, but there is too much fragmentation for this movement to be effective. Sumeet still avoided to recognize that these “legitimate” protests – by disrupting local economies, for example – have had negative effects on the people they have claimed to fight for. In the last month, many stores in New York have found it difficult to stay open with the threat of a possible riot. Many protesters have stated that they feel their voice has not been heard by the government. Perhaps if they Occupied Capitol Hill, someone would address their concerns. A protest of this form is a demonstration of groupthink and shows a lack of clear direction. The discourse should be taken not to the streets, but instead inside of the organizations that can shape policies, in Congress, the Senate and so on. The protesters should exercise their democratic rights rather than their vocal cords.
SK: Violetta hasn’t backed her assumption that small businesses will be hurt. In fact, Occupy Vancouver gave a boost to the local economy over the weekend. But even if she is correct, the potential losses caused by these protests does not size up to the amount of damage caused by government policies that favour larger corporations over small businesses. And the accusation that these protests lack vision is slightly ironic. Everyone is hyper-aware that this is a flaw in the movement, which has in fact stimulated a discussion on how to mobilize action-oriented agendas. Take for example the goals voiced by Ottawa-based, non-profit organization Democracy Watch. The group has suggested that protesters support 15 key measures that have been endorsed by over 140 citizen groups across Canada for the past decade, including a call for increased financial and legal penalties for corporate criminality. The dialogue starts here. These groups have tried to talk to Washington, to Ottawa and to London for decades and have been routinely ignored. The beauty of these protests is that they gather these varying groups and form larger and stronger collaborative think tanks. The WTO Seattle protests brought together labour unions, human rights activists, small business owners and global networks that collaborated on new policy initiatives. Those protests lasted one day. Imagine what potential OWS holds.
VN: Let us not paint the WTO Seattle protest as a sunny afternoon; it was a riot. Protesters were sprayed with pepper spray. But most importantly, the lead up to that protest was different. One element of the success was the democratic lobbying at the local level that secured Seattle’s title as a Multilateral Agreement on Investment-Free Zone. Change will happen in government and policy-making institutions. The Tea Party has done more for their cause then this protest ever will for the hundreds of individuals loitering around that New York park. The Tea Party movement originally began with a group of angry citizens who were fed up with the way that the government runs. The way they dealt with their anger was by mobilizing themselves into a political group. Regardless of one's own opinion on the Tea Party, it must be recognized that a moving from obscurity to being represented as a sub-group of the Republican Party is no ordinary feat. Sumeet continues to emphasize the OWS goals, called the Principles of Solidarity, which call for a variety of solutions and eventual progress. This cannot be achieved over a microphone. It must be done within the government. The first of the principles even promotes “Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy.” In order to stop corporate influence on our civil servants and representatives, we must find ourselves in the political discourse, not outside the chambers.
SK: It's curious that Violetta uses the Tea Party as an example, because the Tea Party as a populist movement began with local, then national protests. A few things can be said in response to Violetta’s comments. First, it is not the responsibility of protesters to draft legislation. Our political leaders are paid to do this, and it is their job to address these protests. Second, OWS is a protest against a system. The status quo operates within a corrupt framework that must be undermined as a whole. OWS has called for a re-conceptualization of the way we handle the economy en masse, and if it is given time to grow and solidify, politicians will be forced to respond. If you examine the Nationalist Movement in India, the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. and Second-Wave Feminism, you’ll see that they all began by challenging people to re-think normative, oppressive ideologies that were implicit in the way society functioned. Once government leaders became aware of the scope of injustice, they began to implement change at the legislative and judicial levels. OWS can do the same. If we can muster the courage to seize the opportunity that OWS presents, change is possible.
