Por Daniel Warner
 |
Photograph Source: Stefan Miljuš – Public Domain |
The United States has had its own experiments with new forms of political organizing. While it now seems fossilized in its two-party system – with occasional small openings for organizations like the Tea Party, MAGA, or Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) – the dynamics of something truly original such as Occupy Wall Street seem very much in the past.
What happened? Anton Jäger makes an intriguing argument in Hyperpolitics about the disappearance of common political ground and the exhaustion of conventional politics. Jäger begins from a very simple proposition: “Despite America’s unrivaled dominance on the world stage and continued cultural magnetism, Democrats and Republicans now find it nigh impossible to cohabit the same political space.”
And what does this divided political space look like? “On the one hand, popular involvement in American politics has seen a relative resurgence,” he wrote. “On the other, institutionalized involvement is at an all-time low, while American political parties have only further cartelized and fused with their media and donor classes,” echoing Robert Putnam’s influential 2000 argument in Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community about the decline of American civic life.
Hyperpolitics, according to Jäger, exists in this space between popular movements and the decline of membership associations. His graph of historical development since 1900 shows a sharp increase in politicization since 2010 with decreasing institutionalization since the 1940s. An excellent example he cites is the way “Climate strikes disrupted the school day from Sweden to East Timor and then petered out.” What did happen to Greta Thunberg and her climate protests? What did COP30 accomplish and will COP31 be better?
Jäger challenges the short lifespan of other protest movements as well and their lack of sustainability, finding similarities between Black Lives Matter and the storming of the Capitol: “Morally, they are worlds apart…Organizationally, however, these movements exhibit a striking set of similarities: fleeting in duration, they maintain no membership rolls and struggle to impose any real discipline on their adherents.” The challenge, therefore, is not how to organize opposition to established political power, but how to create new forms of political participation that can survive beyond the highly intense moments of protest.
Serbia and India represent two case studies of creative action within hyperpolitics. Jovan Kurbalija, founder and executive director of DiploFoundation, describes in a Substack post student activity in Serbia that helped bring down the governing alliance of President Aleksandar Vučić. “Serbia’s students… are nurturing a new kind of inclusive, effective democracy, and Europe may have something to learn from it,” Kurbalija wrote. Describing the new, creative elements of opposition, he included: 1) leaderless but not anarchic; 2) decisions by student plenums followed by citizens’ assemblies; 3) agile and decentralized decision-making; 4) digital, but also physical.
Even a reporter for the Financial Times was impressed by the plenums, chaired by a different student each time to remain leaderless: “Over the past two years, these gatherings evolved from organising anti-government protests into highly disciplined collective decision-making bodies.”
“We are here to create, not to rule,” a participant was quoted.
And most impressive: I receive roughly 20 messages a day from Democrats asking me for money. Kurbalija writes: “A few weeks ago, I wanted to make a donation to the students’ movement. Usually, when you are ready to give money, you do not get too many questions. This time was different. The students’ movement asked so many questions about my identity and motivation. At one point, I got tired of filling in forms and wrote: ‘Do not drag me through this process. I just want to give you money.’ Politely, they appreciated my goodwill but explained that they could not accept my support unless I provided all the necessary information…It is a small thing that impressed me a lot. They did not want anything that could give even a hint of lobbying or ‘dirty money.’”
And what about the Cockroaches in India, the world’s largest democracy? They are another case study, more complicated, and perhaps more instructive as an example of creativity within hyperpolitics. The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) emerged from an insult. After India’s Chief Justice referred to unemployed young people as “cockroaches,” young activists turned the insult into a political identity. What began as online satire became a youth-led movement culminating in the eventual resignation of India’s education minister. The name Cockroaches itself is deliberately ridiculous, even self-deprecating. But that is part of its appeal. Students turned an insult into a form of solidarity, however limited. Reuters reported that its founder was still undecided about whether to create a formal party.
There are some striking parallels with Serbia. Both movements were driven by young people who felt excluded from established political institutions; both have used digital communication to organize and spread their message; both have resisted being absorbed into conventional parties and politics.
Both movements also challenged conventional ideas of political leadership. In Serbia, the refusal to identify a single leader or allow established politicians to take ownership of the movement was a source of strength. In India, the Cockroach movement demonstrated how a seemingly ridiculous identity could become a powerful organizing device without relying on a single charismatic person.
The question, of course, is what happens next. What happens to intense, highly visible political movements when there are no institutions capable of sustaining them? Can a movement create institutions without becoming the kind of institution it originally set out to challenge?
As Jäger admits: “The corrective to our hyperpolitical impasse…of drawing atomized individuals back into parties and unions may seem nostalgic, authoritarian, or simply unrealistic.” Indeed, he understands that “Even the most hardened reactionary must accept by now that no amount of railing against the legacy of 1968 and postmodern hedonism will inspire the youth to unplug their consoles and start attending church in formal wear on Sunday.”
I for one am not ready to join some bowling league or attend church on Sunday in formal wear. And I will certainly not unplug my console. What I do accept, however, is what he calls the “reinstitutionalization of political engagement,” a return to the importance of social relations and social capital, that which binds people together and has the possibility of maintaining lasting political change.
The examples of Serbia and India are encouraging. We need new creative forms of political organization that combine the energy and flexibility of protest movements with the durability of institutions. Protests are fine. Elections like the midterms are also fine. It’s what happens after that is decisive.
Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário