In response to the Oct. 3 editorial, "Occupy movement needs to grow up," we'd like to begin by expressing some solidarity with our friends at the Daily. We believe that the skepticism expressed in the Daily and elsewhere is well?intentioned and justified, as the form and scope of these occupations are virtually unprecedented as a means of social and political organization, especially among the youth, in this country. Indeed, many of us involved in the occupation have had our moments of doubt and hesitation.
Nevertheless, there are some important points of clarification that we'd like to make in order to address, and hopefully assuage, such concerns. Foremost among these are the issues of our message and our demands, which, the Daily was correct to note, are central to the long?term success of a social movement. The grievances expressed by participants in the occupation are many, diverse and, even this early on, common knowledge, so we will not address them in this space.
Whatever our grievances, though, our message so far has been quite clear: We have had enough of politics, and of business, as usual. And while the discussion of how best to generate and convey specific demands in response to this frustration is ongoing, it has not stopped us from beginning to enact a solution.
How can this be? Well, assume for the moment that our main grievance is the oft?cited failure of the state to act on behalf of its constituents, inundated as it has become with corporate money. (This is only one of many explanations we might suggest, but in a political system in which corporations such as Koch Industries or Berkshire Hathaway, each estimated to earn over $100 billion annually, have political rights equal to those of actual, flesh?and?blood American citizens, it does not seem an especially drastic claim.) We express our frustration over this feeling of disenfranchisement first by the act of occupation itself. Before any substantive, goal?oriented action can take place, we must ensure that the political and economic actors we believe to be responsible for usurping our voices in the democratic process hear our complaints and engage them.
But because the persistent inability of traditional institutional processes (such as voting) to facilitate this conversation is exactly our complaint, we vote instead with our feet and with our bodies. These we carry to the very doorsteps (or, more accurately, the front lawns) of the houses of corporate power, where those within will no longer be able to ignore us indefinitely. And when skeptics and antagonists try to forestall the dreaded dialogue with demands for more concrete demands, we again use our bodies - a truly just and fair form of political action and representation - to show them that a solution is in fact tenable. More specifically, we organize not vertically or hierarchically, but rather horizontally.
So what does horizontal democracy mean? It means that we reject the oppressive dynamics of having leaders and followers in favor of a system based on equality and consensus. In a horizontal democracy, every participant is entitled to speak and to have his or her voice heard with absolutely equal clarity and legitimacy. This way, everyone who wants to can be a leader, and not just figuratively.
The backbone of the occupations is a massive gathering of anyone present and interested, called a general assembly (GA). All important discussions, planning and decision?making occur at these GAs, or in smaller, interest?oriented and fully open working groups (including but not limited to media, medical, legal, food, tactics, sanitation, security and recess) which reproduce the horizontal organization of the larger body. Important questions, pertinent announcements, the occasional impassioned diatribe - all are made by speakers who simply have to sign up on a chronological list and wait for the microphone to be passed their way. Of course, the execution of so radical a model will never occur without missteps, but we learn from these so that every misstep is still a step closer to our goal of a truly horizontal democracy.
Members of the assembly, meanwhile, convey their reactions through a set of easy, identifiable and frankly fun hand gestures: hands up and fingers wiggling for support or approval, extended outward for uncertainty, and downward for disapproval ... and so on. These gestures make the general sentiment of the assembly visibly clear and voting by consensus exceptionally easy. Moreover, borrowed as many of these practices are from similar protest movements around the world, they locate us in a blossoming tradition of direct democracy, with practitioners of all imaginable ages, races and creeds, from Argentina to Italy to Spain to the Czech Republic and beyond.
Questions from members of the assembly get a special treatment, one that is actually astonishing to experience. A C?shaped and raised hand signifies a question, which, once acknowledged, is intoned through a most powerful megaphone: the People's Mic. Here's how it works: The inquiring person shouts "Mic Check," and everyone within earshot then shouts the same. Then everyone within earshot of these shouters does, too. Within seconds, you have a rippling wave of sound far louder and infinitely more beautiful to hear than any proper PA system could ever hope to be. Now, with everyone attentive and involved, the speaker shouts his or her question in fragments short enough to be easily heard and repeated until finished. The person addressed is then free to offer any response back with regular old electronic amplification.
If you're still wondering what exactly is so extraordinary about the People's Mic, let us explain. First of all, it works extremely well. More importantly, however, it distills the aim of the occupation - of reclaiming our access to equal and just representation - and gives life to it. The People's Mic can put the voice of an individual into the throats and lungs of thousands, regardless of who that person is, where he or she comes from or has to say. For many of us involved in the occupation, our voices have never felt so loud, much less so listened to, as they have with the People's Mic - and certainly not by voting.
To be clear: Most of us that do vote will not stop now that the occupation is underway. We do acknowledge that such conventional political expression still serves important functions in party politics at all levels of government. All that we intend to suggest by our explanation of the GAs, and especially by the example of the People's Mic, is that there are other ways of doing democracy, vibrant and perhaps even viable ways. We, for our part, are taking these alternatives seriously - engaging and refining them so that when we are ready and able to take serious political action and make concrete policy proposals, we can be sure that they represent the will of the 99 percent, not just the lobbying dollars of the one percent.
Our suggestion is that you do, too. If you're uncertain about occupying, then at least join the conversation - go to Dewey Square, call a Mic Check and see what democracy looks and sounds like. That seems like a reasonable enough first demand.
--
