Elsewhere in this magazine (see ‘Anarchism, Elections and all that’),
the anarchist case against participation in elections is outlined. The
alternative political strategy put forward by anarchists is the use of
direct action. This article sets out to examine what is meant by the
concept of direct action and also to argue that it is impossible to
combine electoralism and direct action, that by its nature electoralism
is disempowering, and that real direct action and participation in
elections are mutually exclusive.

Politics in Ireland and elsewhere is dominated by clientelism. People
see themselves as needing politicians to “do stuff” for them. The
politicians who are most successful are those who play the clientelist
game most effectively. And left wing or socialist parties and candidates
who decide to play the electoral game find themselves drawn into this
clientelist game as well. This has huge implications in terms of how
they approach campaigning work.



Many left-wing activists will argue that it is possible to combine
campaigning and participation in elections. The reality however is
different. Because of the way in which the electoral system works, the
person who is going to be the election candidate has to be the ‘face’ of
the campaign, has to be the main spokesperson, has to be seen to be the
driving force of the campaign. Thus campaigns can often become the
opposite of encouraging mass participation, campaigners are treated as
‘followers’ or ‘supporters’ of the election candidate not as equal
participants.



Thus the very participation in electoral politics re-enforces the
concept of clientelism, and endorses – whether deliberately or not – a
political system based on rulers and ruled, leaders and led. Anarchism
is about building a different type of political system – one that
rejects that notion and that attempts to build a society based on power
from below – one whereby people take responsibility for their own
decisions and for their own actions. One of the principal tactics for
getting to such a society is through the use of direct action – whereby
people are encouraged to take responsibility for and ownership of their
own struggles and to reject the concept that ‘someone else’ will sort
out our problems for us.



Definition

According to the Wikipedia definition ‘Direct action is a form of
political activism which seeks immediate remedy for perceived ills, as
opposed to indirect actions such as electing representatives who promise
to provide remedy at some later date.’



The Anarchist FAQ (see http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secJ2.html)
states ‘Basically, direct action means that instead of getting someone
else to act for you (e.g. a politician) you act for yourself. Its
essential feature is an organised protest by ordinary people to make a
change by their own efforts.’



Anarchists have always been exponents of direct action as a political
tactic. Not only is direct action most often the most effective tactic
to use in a political struggle but also – and just as importantly -
direct action is about empowering people, it's about breaking from
dependency on others to run our lives. Rather than pleading with our
bosses or electing 'better' politicians to make decisions for us, it
means ordinary people coming together to win change through our own efforts.



But, as well as seeing it as an effective tactic in the here and now,
anarchists see direct action as a preparation for the type of new
society we are trying to build. Central to anarchist belief is that the
means leads to the ends. If we are to create a free society built on
real grassroots democracy from the bottom up, a lot of people will have
to be involved. Huge numbers of people will have to believe that
together they themselves are capable of overthrowing the present system
and building, developing and defending a different type of society.



Through engaging in direct action we all can learn, through direct
involvement, that there is no need to leave things to 'experts' or
professional politicians. We can discover how to organise our own
campaigns, how to devise strategies, how to build links with others, how
to develop feelings of mutual interest and solidarity, we learn that
there is strength in numbers, that by linking up with others who are
concerned about the same issue we make ourselves so much stronger. After
all, there is no point in refusing to pay the bin tax if you don’t try
to convince your neighbour to oppose it as well, there’s no point in
getting your neighbour to boycott it if people in all the other areas
are unaware of the campaign and continue paying.



Direct action – whether that’s a work-to-rule or strike in the workplace
or a campaign which involves the non-payment of the bin tax – leads to
the development of ideas of solidarity and mutual aid. This in turn
leads to the development of political self-confidence among those
directly involved. If we want to develop that new free society, that
level of self-confidence is a pre-requisite.



Nothing mysterious

But what exactly is ‘direct action’? The answer to this is that while
there’s nothing mysterious about what constitutes direct action, it can
take many forms. In the workplace, it’s everything from work-to-rule to
strike action. In the community or in campaigns it’s everything from
refusing to pay bin charges to taking a hammer to the nose of a plane in
Shannon to blockading the Shell terminal in Mayo. The common
characteristic is that it involves people doing something for
themselves, and not relying on someone else – be that a politician, a
trade union official or a community ‘leader’ to act on their behalf.



The growth of libertarian and anarchist politics in Ireland and
elsewhere in recent years has seen ‘direct action’ as a political tactic
gain currency and popularity. Some of the most prominent examples of
direct action on the Irish political landscape in recent years have been
the decommissioning of U.S. troop-carrying planes at Shannon airport and
the community resistance to the installation of a high pressure gas
pipeline in the Erris area of Co. Mayo. The words ‘direct action’ and
‘Non Violent Direct Action’ have entered the political lexicon of
practically all political activists.



These two particular examples provide us with an interesting comparison.
The first – the attacks on planes in Shannon carried out by the Pitstop
Ploughshares 5 (see http://www.peaceontrial.com) and by Mary Kelly - involved
small group or individual action. The second – the protests against
Shell’s pipeline in Mayo (see http://www.corribsos.com) – involve
attempts to include as many people as possible in collective action.
Small group and individual direct actions are in themselves effective
means of protest, they give hope, they show us that resistance is
possible and effective. On the negative side, however, they leave the
majority in the role of spectators and supporters.



It is the involvement of large numbers of people in direct action
protests which is the type of action that we most favour. This
involvement helps to break down the distinctions between ‘activists’ and
the ordinary person. It encourages everyone to become centrally involved
in taking action him/herself rather than relying on someone else. Such
participation is of itself empowering. Certainly participation in a
successful mass direct action shows somebody quite vividly their own
power and the collective strength of people banding together to demand
their rights. But, even if unsuccessful, such participation has
nevertheless taught the participants a huge amount about collectivity
and strength. The knowledge of skills and tactics and the confidence
gained will ensure that in future cases people will look to that same
collective strength instead of relying on the clientelist approach to
politics.



Mass direct action

On 1st March 2003, the Grassroots Network Against War controversially
organised what it billed a mass direct action at Shannon airport. The
call-out for the protest stated
“We will attempt to engage in a mass trespass at Shannon airport. This
action will be an example of mass non-violent civil disobedience in the
tradition of Gandhi's salt march. It will be a purely peaceful protest.
We intend to signal our opposition to US warplanes refueling at Shannon
airport and to indicate that we refuse to sit back while our government,
acting in our names, gives material assistance to a war that will be
both brutal and unjust.” (see
http://struggle.ws/wsm/news/2003/GNAWplansMARCH1.html)



While it was to be expected that the media and mainstream politicians
would react with near hysteria to the announced plans, what was not so
expected was that most of the left and the Irish Anti War Movement were
almost more hysterical and negative in their reaction. This resulted in
an intense debate among activists as to whether the plans should have
been announced publicly. Some argued that by making such a public call
for the protest we played into the hands of our opponents allowing them
to create a hype about ‘violent protest’. The counter argument was put
succinctly in a subsequent issue of Workers Solidarity
“In the afterglow of February 15th it was reasonable to assume that a
couple of thousand would show up at Shannon. The reason for publicising
it was to encourage the maximum number of participants in the direct
action itself. The plan to tear the fence down was dependent largely on
numbers. The fact that the numbers didn't materialise was disappointing,
and all the publicity, far more than expected, probably served to scare
away people rather than attract them.



If people don't know about an event then they we can't expect them to
participate. Open publication of the plan allows people to make an
informed decision about the extent of their involvement. It minimises
the chances of them being drawn into events they are uncomfortable
with.”
(http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2003/ws75/da.html)



Mass involvement in direct action builds a feeling of strength and
solidarity which cannot be achieved by small group or individual action.
All most of us can do in the situation of someone or a small group who
carries out an individual act of sabotage or direct protest is to offer
support and solidarity to that person or group. It leaves us in the
position of being cheerleaders/supporters for the actions of others
rather than opening up the possibility of our own direct involvement.



And if we want to get maximum involvement from as many people as
possible, it is self-evident that this cannot be organised in a
clandestine or secret manner. It is interesting indeed that 3 years and
a half later when the Shell to Sea campaign organised days of action in
Mayo with the explicitly stated aim of stopping work on the Shell
terminal at Bellinaboy, this debate didn’t even happen. It was just
taken for granted that calls for mass participative direct action was
the way to go.
As this article is being written, controversy rages about the fact that
the local campaign has stepped back from these mass participation direct
action protests in the face of extreme police brutality. But there is no
debate about the fact that the campaign tactic of mass participative
direct action has been strengthening and empowering. Compared to the
serious controversy engendered by the proposal of such a tactic in
Shannon in March 2003, it seems that political debate has moved
considerably and that ‘direct action’ as a tactic has moved closer to
centre-stage.



Strike action

One of the other controversies at the time of the proposed Shannon
action in March ’03 was the contention that the action would make the
organisation of strike action by the workers at Shannon more difficult
to organise. This was and remains an important argument. After all
there’s probably no argument with the fact that the single most
effective form of direct action protest is workers – through their
unions – refusing to re-fuel planes in Shannon or refusing to build
Shell’s terminal. Or, in the case of another anti-war action in Ireland
– refusing to co-operate with Raytheon’s pro-war work in Derry.



Across Europe there have at various times been such actions. But in
Ireland we have never got past ritualistic calls for strike action. The
challenge that faces us is to turn the tide of public opinion to one
supportive of such action. If we are asking workers in Shannon, for
example, to refuse to handle planes carrying US troops we are asking
them to put their jobs and their livelihoods on the line. How can we
create a public climate which will rally round and support such workers?
How can we even create the climate where their unions – who despite
their stated position of opposition to the war – will support them in
such an action?



One thing is certain. Direct actions such as the March ’03 attempt to
pull down the fence at Shannon or the August ‘06 occupation of the
Raytheon plant cannot harm attempts to organise workers’ action. As the
Workers Solidarity article referred to above (from WS 75) put it :
"Aren't Workers strikes are the best form of direct action?"



True again, and while we should do our bit to encourage and support them
there's no reason to wait for them to do it. They mightn't be agreeable
to the anti-war case or they mightn't have the confidence to risk going
on strike. If we're going to call for them to take a risk we should at
least be prepared to take a few ourselves. Workers' strikes and
breaching security are not mutually exclusive tactics.”



This is the challenge in the context of anti-war activity and in the
Shell context in Mayo. Can we continue to (or in Shannon’s case
re-start) build direct action protests with mass participation, and at
the same time work through our unions and community organisations to
create the political climate in which workers will feel able to take the
most effective form of direct action – strike action.

This article is from Red and Black Revolution 12, published March 2007

Read the rest of the articles in this issue online at http://www.wsm.ie/story/2387

Download the PDF file from http://struggle.ws/pdfs/rbr/rbr12.pdf

Read all the issues of Red and Black Revolution at http://www.wsm.ie/rbr