For fans of political theatre, the Occupy Melbourne movement has already given us many moments of high drama, the General Assembly (GA) on Saturday 12th November was no exception. Within three hours there were moments of anger and passion including a stand off with cops and council staff and a practically all in shouting match contrasted with hours of calm discussion in large and small groups. After all this eventually that magical word consensus was reached on the decision to defy the Melbourne City Council’s compliance notices and erect “structures”. The divisions within the movement between socialists, non-aligned hippies, indigenous and non-indigenous, campers and non-campers, working groups and others etc all came to the fore but by the end we all stood united in our defiance to political repression and in our determination to continue our movement for justice.
Related:Photos of the day at Melbourne Protests Weblog
As someone who has written extensively on my perceptions of the faults of some within the Facilitation Working Group I would like to start by saying that the only thing that stopped this show turning into a circus was the skilled and democratic role played by the two moderators. It really demonstrates how a non-hierarchical approach to meetings can really help defuse and work through conflicts.
The stage was set for drama before the meeting began when Robbie Thorpe, Coby and other members of the Indigenous community set up a Marquee and established a First Nations Embassy. From this embassy they began to issue Aboriginal Passports. The position of Robbie and the others is that Aboriginal Sovereignty has never been legally ceded in this country which they refer to as the “Stolenwealth of Australia”. The 8th General Assembly of Occupy Melbourne endorsed a call for a Treaty with the First Nations of Australia.
Other individuals also chose to set up three or four other marquees near the Aboriginal Embassy. The day has been advertised as a Mass re-occupation of the Gardens. This was all in defiance of the ban by the Melbourne City Council who had already issued Occupy Melbourne with a compliance notice to remove all “things” from the park and all protest signs. On Friday, OM participant James Muldoon’s attempt to get an injunction against this compliance order failed, but the arguments made by Ron Merkel QC were convincing enough for the Federal Court to say that they will hear the case within a week or so. It should also be noted that prior to the meeting as the marquees were erected there was virtually no police or council presence in the park.
The meeting began with the moderators putting to the vote a revised agenda where the issues of structures would be discussed earlier in the meeting. We started however with report backs from the working groups. We heard from a number of working groups including the Indigenous Working Group about the Embassy, an update on the Court injunction from James and a report back from Jacob Grech from the Police and Authorities liaison Working Group. The meeting however erupted into controversy when a member of the Logistics group reported back words to the effect that the marquees that had gone up did not have the “support” of the Logistics working group as the decision has not gone through a GA to put up structures. Whether this was just a poorly chosen way of expressing the Logistics group “we neither support or oppose” neutrality on matters that have not gone through a GAor a statement of frustration that these structures had gone up without “permission” is not clear. What was clear was that many people in the meeting didn’t like it, including members of the Indigenous Working Group.
As heckling broke out a crowd started to gather around the marquees that had been erected at the rear of the meeting. Jacob Grech rushed to the front of the meeting and gave a report back that Council Officers had just issued Robbie Thorpe with a Compliance notice to take down the First Nations Embassy and other “structures”. Jacob basically asked people to come and defend the Embassy. Meanwhile the poor moderators had to decide what to do and wisely decided to suspend the meeting for ten minutes. Probably 100-150 people crowded around the marquees chanting “Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land” and within a few minutes the small police and council presence had retreated. However the group didn’t seem to immediately notice we had just won a victory over the state and proceeded to turn on each other. I watched as I sat under one of the marquees what can only be described as a large screaming scrum occurrng. The crowd seemed to devolve into three broad factions, the Indigenous Working Group who were expressing in fairly colorful language that they didn’t need anyone’s permission to set up an Embassy on their own land, members of various Socialist Groups who were accusing anyone who didn’t support the Embassy as being sell outs and racists and people upset that structures had gone up without first being discussed within a GA. This group seems to be aggrieved that structures going up could endanger the whole camp by provoking actions by the state and that some of the people advocating this position, particularly “socialists” were not staying at the camp anyway and were advocating militancy but they would not have to deal with the consequences.
After 15 or so minutes two things happened. Firstly, it was clear we were not about to be rushed by the cops and secondly the moderators eventually convinced people it was time to restart the GA. It was wisely decided by the Facilitation Team that rather than just continue with the meeting, we needed to have a discussion on what had happened during the break. The first motion that was moved was by Sarah from Socialist Alternative who did not mince her words. She proposed that Occupy Melbourne defend the First Nations Embassy by linking arms around it if the police returned. She stated words to the effect that she couldn’t believe that when the police had come in, some people present couldn’t decide “which side they were on”. A series of speakers from the Indigenous Working Group also made their point very passionately that they felt hurt at the perceived lack of solidarity and that they didn’t need permission to put up their Embassy because it is their land. Basically at this point, it became clear that no-one was really prepared to speak against this motion. A series of clarification were made. For example it was clarified the motion only called on defending the First Nations Embassy not all the structures that had been erected. Some people were concerned that people may not be able to defend the Embassy if the numbers were small late at night for example. However, given the heat generated just a short time earlier, consensus to support and defend the Embassy was reached fairly quickly.
Next, the same person who gave the controversial Logistics report back earlier in the meeting, made an individual proposal that we erect structures. What followed was a long discussion where the merits of erecting structures was debated. Some questioned whether this was even a collective decision and that people didn’t need the GA’s permission. Some argued that erecting structures was irresponsible if we couldn’t defend them against the police with small numbers. Some thought the time was not right and the decision needed more thought. Others argued that the time for action had come and we should defy the compliance notice in the spirit of non-violent resistance. Someone moved a separate proposal that tents should be erected around the Embassy in an act of solidarity. The discussion continued but it was clear there was not consensus. To the moderators credit they did not try to “force” a false consensus and actually asked the meeting for suggestions on how to proceed.. Someone suggested we break up into small groups to discuss the proposals. This was incredibly successful, allowing a multiplicity of voices to be heard and a number of new proposals to be made. After about 20 minutes each group reported back to the whole meeting. One of the new proposals included making our structures out of protest signs themselves as a statement about free speech. After these report backs we broke up into small groups again. The GA by this stage was significantly smaller than when it started but there were still well over 100 people actively involved in the meeting. We broke into the same small groups for further discussion. When we returned we heard some more proposals including one to start a tent fund and another to set up the camp with five communal tents (made out of protest signs) including a first aid, kitchen, info, sleeping and (one other?).
Consensus then began to be tested on the proposals on the table. It was clear how productive the small group discussions had been in helping people to find common ground and break down any lingering divisiveness within the meeting. We quickly reached consensus on erecting structures. We then quickly reached consensus on erecting the structures around the First Nations Embassy. Finally we reached consensus on the proposal that we erect five communal structures made out of protest signs rather than focus on individual tents, although it was acknowledged repeatedly that individuals were not constrained in setting up any tents they liked. It was mentioned that logistics would help with finding the exact locations of these structures and every effort would be made to protect the park itself and that some structures may be consolidated during the day etc to minimize conflict with the Council. After a long meeting we had reached consensus on defying the Melbourne City Council and to reclaim the right to protest for a more just, peaceful and sustainable world whilst be protected from the elements in a public space.
The last proposal on the table was one from me to immediately start collecting money and to collect money at future GA’s for a “tent fund” so that if the authorities did move in to take people property we could afford to replace them and erect them again Nick Carson spoke against this motion on the grounds we shouldn’t be collecting money on behalf of OM itself as it raised potential problems in terms of accountability. Due to the fact it was 7.30PM by now and everyone including the moderators was whacked, this debate was cut off and was put on the agenda for Wednesday’sGA. On a personal note, I think it is important that this proposal is supported as we have to start taking collective responsibility to stand with each other in the spirit of solidarity. Collecting money is one clear way to do this, so if the state trashes our stuff, its not up to individuals to just “cop it” but all of our responsibilities to deal with it. The same goes for people going to court – we need to deal with solidarity on a collective level.. We will need to sort out a bank account and get signatories on it etc but this is achievable.
After the meeting wrapped about, apparently 70-80 people stayed the night in the newly “structured” Occupy Melbourne. We will see how over the next few days the council and police respond. Will they hold off until the Federal Court hearing clarifies the legality of their actions or will they move in again with a heavy hand with the “zero tolerance” approach promised by Robert Doyle? Hopefully they will back off and we can again dedicate time at GA’s to not discussing tents and marquees but the political aims and actions of our movement. I can only encourage people to come down to the GA’s to be a part of this dynamic process. I think this Saturday’s GA shows that despite our obvious differences, using the radical processes of direct democracy we can find common ground and work together to make important political decisions. This process is at the heart of the Occupy movement worldwide. Be a part of it and be a part of the best free show in town.
By Davey Heller
Note: this is just my perspective on the GA. I do not pretend it is objective or complete. Please feel free to post your perspective as a comment or separate article telling me where I got it wrong or right!
Comments
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
It's great that our indigenous comrades have set up a tent embassy in Treasury Gardens.
What is less great is that Occupy Melbourne seems to stand for nothing. I recognise that this form of organic democracy can be a slow moving best, but it doesn't seem to be slow, it seems to be at a standstill. Moreover it is less representative than it was. Occupy Melbourne has lost momentum. Of course this is why the State chose to evict us from City Square, so that we would become invisible, we would not attract an audience.
.
When we become isolated, as we have been made, we need to consider other strategies. For example, we could continue to have a mobile presence in City Square, with hand held banners and leaflets to hand out to people. But you can't hand out leaflets if you don't have a message.
And I feel this is the present problem with the movement overall. I do not speak for other occupy protests around the globe, but specifically for Occupy Melbourne, and I know that I speak as an outsider. But without a message you stop having a voice. A voice without a message is no voice at all. I guess you could start with the "draft declaration," although I fear that it lacks any true substance or reality. So far all that I am aware that we have agreed to as a policy is that there be a treaty with the first Australians. That's not much to go to the people with. Certainly a treaty is important. It is beyond my comprehension that the present Federal Government is not hard at work to deliver a treaty in the present term of this government. We know that the opposition will certainly not do this. Perhaps work is being done in this direction. If not it ought to be.
I have already stated a number of policies I think are worth considering for adoption. We need a policy platform. Without that we have nothing to say. Certainly we can fight for our right to set up tents. But that is not what we stand for. That is not what we represent. Unless we can tell people what we represent, we have failed.
And at the present time we represent nothing except the right to occupy. It's not good enough. It can be said of me that it's not good enough to naysay the movement when I am not involved in the decision making of the movement. But I don't recognise the democratic nature of the movement. I don't recognise that it is representative. I don't recognise that it is functional. And so I despair at what the movement is meant to achieve. I can see it frittering itself away and becoming nothing. Which would be a shame, because the genesis of the movement, a response to the excesses of wealth and privilege and bad economic policy, that has, in other parts of the world, punished the weakest because of the failures of the powerful, could have been a powerful tool for social change.
How many more GA's will it take before Occupy Melbourne stands for something? Or is it impossible for it to stand for anything because it is too divided, and is being directed by socialists who have outlived their relevance? Perhaps I am jaded. But we need better answers. And the way to better answers is to ask questions.
Re: Noel's comment
You make some very good points Noel. I think the Occupy Melbourne does stand for something though. It does not have a manifesto but that is its strength. What it stands for is what it is - occupying public space in defiance of the 1% to create a space for direct democracy - as opposed to the elite-controlled representative democracy of advanced liberal state-capitalism. You may want to look at http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/understanding-the-theory-behin... . This is an excellent article which explains that the occupy movement is a process rather than a set of policies.
The policies that you speak of - and many of them are worthy in my view - can be worked out as we progress. The important issue is that they will be decided on and implemented by the 99% through participatory self-government. Who knows what fantastic policies will come as a result of this? How about the abolition of the wage system for example? The four hour day? Living in harmony with the earth rather than exploiting it for the sake of profits for the few? On the other hand, it could result simply in the things you have suggested, proportional representation etc. Or maybe, a bit of both. Whatever happens, I suggest that these policies will be much better than what we have now. And everyone - apart from the ultra rich greedy and murderous 1% and their supporters - will be committed to them. The other thing is that the occupy movement is already making considerable gains. It looks like we may change the laws (in practice if not in writing) which led to the eviction; and the workers at Baiada appear to be winning. I think that many actions such as the Baiada strike will have more chance of success with the strength of the occupy movement being demonstrated around the world. Naomi Klein a few days ago argued that the occupy movement had changed the political landscape and thereby contributed to the blocking recent win on the Nebraska pipeline.( See www.democracynow.org )
I think that you make some valid points regarding the problems with Occupy Melbourne's democratic processes. But I think, over time, we will see that improve. There will always be problems though - but it beats the present system by miles. I hope in the meantime that you find your way into the Occupy Melbourne process in a way that is more satisfying for you and that your voice gets heard and respected.
It is true that many of the Trotskyist groups are involved in Occupy Melbourne (I am not a member or supporter any of them; I admire many of the individuals that I know though I disagree with much of their philosophy; but that would be the same for many groups - the Greens for example). That is their right - they are part of the 99%. Many of them are also committed to a democratic form of socialism which is much different to what you saw in Soviet state-socialism from 1917 to 1989 (which, I would argue was not socialism because the workers did not control the means of production - the state did). I think we should accept everyone - with the exception of the police association and the big bosses. It is a very diverse movement and we need to concentrate on the things that we have in common if we are to beat the 1%. But the Trotskyists don't have any more control over the movement than anyone else. In fact, Davey has argued in his articles on this site that a small conservative group has manipulated the process. I do not have a view on that but that is not to say he is wrong. The democratic processes in place seem to be very strong to me. I doesnt look like any one group will control Occupy Melbourne in the long run if anyone does want to control it. It is very difficult to control a diverse and large group which operates through procedures such as 90% consensus at GAs.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Thanks for this great article. You are keeping the 99% informed. It looks like we now have a battle between, on the one hand, the law of the land (Aboriginal Law/Lore) and the Law of the 99% and on the other, the law of the 1%. The decision to erect structures will make it easier for the Federal Court to rule in favour of the 99%. If the court case goes the wrong way (from the 99% point of view) we will definitely have a battle on our hands but one that can be won. Whatever happens, direct action gets the goods - methinks.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Just a suggestion from afar, if we had optional preferential voting at the next federal election - that would change the dynamic . Its something solid to aim for and has consequences . As none of us would be forced to vote for people we dont like. If you have the numbers seen on tv , whether they turn up or not and you can contact them, get them to sign either a petition or proforma letters to the senate via the greens senators calling for op-pref in time for the next election.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Hi Citizen Coleman what do you mean by "optional preferential voting"?
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Jack the last GA according to the above article finished with about 100 people, hardly the "diverse and large group" you suggest. Moreover I am unhappy with the continual affirmation that we represent the 99%. Sorry, I don't know what the fuck that means. I think it is arrogant to purport to represent others when they haven't assented to it. It's just fucking wrong, to be blunt.
The message is confused. The GA's cover the same old ground every time. Three hours to achieve... what exactly? is there a working group for policy formation?
I don't like these chants "this is what democracy looks like," and "we are the 99%." I think these are facile and misrepresentative. I have already stated in other places that if the type of organic, structureless democracy that is being practiced by the occupy movement is unworkable on any broad based scale. You need better answers. To simply say we are slowly grinding our way towards something is a nonsense. If anything we are slowly grinding our way to irrelevance and oblivion.
I'm proud to be a socialist, just not the same jumped up tired old socialist that wants to replicate Lenin. Let's stop calling ourselves the 99%, because we are not them. For example if 50% of the activists are socialist then we possibly represent 1% of the people of this nation. These are simple facts.
If I was to describe myself politically it would be as a social democrat socialist, using the tools of the democracy we have to fight for effective change. And then looking at real changes that can be effected within this society, that might be readily agreed to by sensible people, not hard line policies or anything that people can't readily agree to, and that is, i would suggest, the 99%, if you want, under perhaps a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, where what we decide is what we would choose if we were free and knowing creatures able to exercise absolute choice on how society ought to be conducted. Not to say that I am Rawlsian, by any degree, I think Rawls is simply a socialist with a new way of thinking about socialism.
It's true, Occupy Melbourne has only been going a month. And after six days it was effectively derailed by the state. But I don't see any cohesion going forward. The press ar ejust waiting for us to say something. Certainly the Tent Embassy is a statement, it's a good new beginning, it will be interesting to see Doyle's response.
I don't think the Occupy movement's democratic processes are better than the political structures we have now. They are different, but they are not necessarily better. What makes for a good democracy is effective democracy, where people's real interests are looked after by people who are elected to represent their interests. The two party preferred for of democracy is perhaps one of the least democratic forms of governance we could have. The result of the two party preferred method of voting is that heirarchial forms of government ensue, and the least amount of people are represented. This is why I return to proportional representation. This would get socialists onto the floor of parliament. It would effective deny one party the right to govern in it's own right. It would effectively reduce executive power.
Anyway some of us are going to get together to thrash out some of this stuff. We need a working group that wants to be an effective instrument of social change. It won't be dominated by ideology, or by one group, hopefully it will reflect the will and aspiration of those people who are involved in this movement. It will have to, because only the GA can vindicate its determinations.
If anyone wants to be involved in a discussion of policy please contact me.
Re: representative democracy
Ok - interesting reply fellow-worker Noel. "I think it is arrogant to purport to represent others when they haven't assented to it." I couldn't agree more. And I will never assent to anyone representing me. I can speak for myself, thank you very much. So, let me make it crystal clear. I am not suggesting that we represent the 99%. We simply have a process of 'direct' as opposed to 'representative' democracy. That is, the 99% have the opportunity to come to GAs and participate in decision-making as equals. If they can't (I haven't been to one yet) they can join a group or set up a new group - as you say - and that group can get involved in the process. Failing that, they can set up there own occupy project in the suburbs - or whatever movement they want - to press their demands. This is totally different from representative democracy where we elect someone to have our say for us and then have absolutely no control over what they do in our name. Many people in occupy Melbourne seem to claim that we represent people - I disagree.
In my view, direct democracy is a superior form of democracy. You write "What makes for a good democracy is effective democracy, where people's real interests are looked after by people who are elected to represent their interests." This is the elitist democracy of Harold Lasswell, Schumpeter, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays (and heavily influenced by Macchiavelli) which has been discredited so well by our socialist friend, Noam Chomsky. It involves taking the activity government away from the people and putting it in the hands of an elected elite who invariably proceed to govern for the powerful minority (even in times of the welfare state, we still had to contend with wage-slavery, wars, and racism promoted by governments). That is they arrogantly have purported to represent the electorate when most of the important decisions they have made would never have been assented to. So I have to agree to disagree there.
Keep smiling.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Just a suggestion from afar, if we had optional preferential voting at the next federal election - that would change the dynamic . Its something solid to aim for and has consequences . As none of us would be forced to vote for people we dont like. If you have the numbers seen on tv , whether they turn up or not and you can contact them, get them to sign either a petition or proforma letters to the senate via the greens senators calling for op-pref in time for the next election.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Some photos etc of the afternoon on Melbourne Protests - http://melbourneprotests.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/occupy-melbourne-ctd-s...
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Okay, for example, I think that free public transport is an excellent idea. How would your "direct democracy" achieve this? I mean on a state level, as public transport is a matter for the states. What would be the process. How would it work. I'd love to see a demonstration of direct democracy that has the capacity to make broadly based decisions, so humour me, how would direct democracy resolve this issue. Remember also that to assent to free public transport you need to be able to fund the cost. You might need bring the transport sector back into public hands. You may need to pay compensation to Metro and Yarra Trams. Unlike the federal Government the States cannot simply print money (even if this was a good idea).
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
G'day comrade Noel. I am not presenting myself as a comedian today. You will find out when you join in.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
Funny Jack, I'm already joined in. I'm part of the debate. Or can such things only be discussed within the inner sanctum of the politburo?
I know how representative democracy works, and how it can be made to work better. I don't know about your "direct democracy" at all. But be ignorant, if that suits you best. It only demonstrates that Occupy Melbourne is too dysfunctional to stand for anything that can change peoples lives, which is a great pity, it means real, radical change is going to have to wait for a later time and a better movement.
But Jack, I'll tell you this much, your words of themselves don't exclude me from having a say, however much you would like them to, or however much you want me to play by your set of rules.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
It's exactly that sort of contempt for the view of others that keeps me away. I don't go where my words are not heard. I think that you can waste very many hours days and centuries talking bullshit when what is actually wanted is an intelligent dialogue, an attempt to overcome problems, to pursue solutions that are not pie ion the sky, that can effect real change, that ordinary people can accept and adopt.
Those are the types of changes I am pursuing. And I hardly need your recommendation to make it so. But if you were at all concerned or interested in being a part of this debate you would reply to my point of discussion. If you think the Indymedia website is not an effective platform, but that sitting in a circle of some few people in Treasury Gardens is an effective platform, then by all means miss out on the debate.
Some other things I would say though. I wouldn't accept any policy, and I don't think Occupy Melbourne ought to, unless it has consensus. And something Occupy Melbourne doesn't seem to know is that consensus is not 99%. It is 100%. Either everyone is in or no-one is in. Of course I don't think this is workable in a national democracy. But it can certainly work on a small scale. With the policy to call for a Treaty with the first Australians we had consensus at the 8th GA. There were two or three other motions adopted that day that had complete consensus. This is what we ought to be striving for. And to do that you need to know how to communicate, and engage, and discuss. It is no point telling someone they are your "comrade," or saying you are not playing the comedian, when that is exactly what you are doing. Stop being so trite, and so fucking condescending. It's demeaning to you, and to me.
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
G'day Comrade Noel, You asked me to 'humour' you by explaining how direct democracy would work in the public transport industry. This makes me wonder if you are interested in a meaningful dialogue. If my response offended you I am sorry. I hope that we can meet up at the occupation. If not, I wish you well with your future contribution to debates.
Make no demands, take, occupy!!!
free public transport = workers control... direct action, direct democracy, decentralisation of power. we are creating relationships of affinity which will hopefully build up to other actions around the problems we face... housing crisis, rental crisis, unemployment, work ( all of it ), eco-collapse... make no demands, take, occupy!!!
Re: Occupy Melbourne GA 12/11/11: The best free show in town
By your words you contribute to the irrelevance of the occupy movement. I am only trying to redress that by discussion. If you don't want to discuss what "direct democracy" means, or how it can be accomplished, don't reply with your "comrade: silliness, it is simply a misdirection. I'm Noel, I don't have titles.
Related article on the GA on the 12th
Ania K.: Conflict within the movement – why are some people resorting to verbal abuse?
http://omdigest.org/2011/11/14/ania-k-conflict-within-the-movement-%E2%8...