One of the biggest internal issues facing OccupyLSX at the moment is organisation and co-ordination. The progress in setting up the camp over the last month has been phenomenal. The camp now has a well established kitchen, on-site security, a media team, cleaners and groups working on welfare, policy, the environment and on out-reach to neighbouring communities. But how much further can we take this model of organisation? Those who have been here from the start are the pillars of this small community. The pressure upon them is beginning to take its toll; not only are they responsible for the running of the camp, but the image we project to others around the country and the globe.
However, their success could be their downfall. By having to take on so much and so fast they have become indispensable to the cause. Only they know all the camp’s background, what is happening now and what the plans are for the future. Naturally, anyone new to a working group lacks this information and immediately put at a disadvantage and other groups in the camp cannot effectively coordinate with each other.
I think the solution is full and total transparency. We operate a democracy, but the biggest challenge to a democracy is an uninformed electorate. Rational decisions cannot be made without the full facts available.
If we’re going to demand that the City of London releases all its records then the least we can do is attempt to lead by example. We also need to make efforts to produce full lists of the working groups in operation, publicise when they meet and publish the finances of the camp. Working groups often live in fear of the General Assembly (GA), when proposals are put forward the discussion that follows almost exactly mirrors what has gone on in the working group beforehand. This tends to waste a lot of time and has the possibility to kill off worthy proposals if the full arguments and counter arguments cannot be discussed.
By making full minutes of the meetings freely available and getting the agendas for the GAs published beforehand, it means that the people that are interested in the topics discussed, but who haven’t been able to attend prior meetings, can give valuable comment on any proposal. Not only will transparency improve the democratic process on site but it will allow people off-site to get involved too. As someone who only joined the movement this week, but who has been following intently from Bristol, I think allowing more people to engage with OccupyLSX can only be a good thing. Many people who support Occupy would welcome an insight into our discussions and the problems we face. Another suggestion which has been made is to substitute working group meetings for the GA on a quasi-regular basis – this way those who work full-time can attend working group meetings from time to time.
We are up and running, and at our core is a small group of highly skilled people who are willing to give everything to the cause, but the only way we can expand the movement is by reaching out to all those supporters who wish us the best, but don’t know how to get involved – and there are many.
We need to focus on attracting hundreds, if not thousands, of part-time Occupiers to drive the movement forward. Not only will this relieve the pressures upon those holding the camp together, but it will allow us to broaden our understanding and discussion of the issues we oppose. The greatest challenge to Occupy is not having a single leader who can oversee and co-ordinate the camp. But we can free ourselves from leadership if only everyone is given the tools with which to improve the movement as a whole. After all, transparency and democracy are the reasons we are here in the first place.
By Sid Ryan
Sid,
I agree with the wider point of this piece but I think the warning is understated. I suggest the core organisers are lacking in their responsibility to step back.
You say GA discussing issues already gone over at a working group “is a waste of time”. Direct democracy does take time. That’s the price of consensus.
All proposals bought to the GA are presumably considered “worthy” by the proposing working group. The people behind a proposal are very often convinced their issue is of the upmost importance that must be acted upon immediately. If a working group is frustrated by the protracted process of GA consensus then…tough. That’s what democracy looks like, as they say. Perhaps the working group should have better prepared their arguments. Or perhaps they are just not going to get what they want.
Anyway, the occupation has long outgrown it’s ability to make all larger decisions at a GA. Working groups are by necessity more autonomous. The working groups should expand their numbers and organisation to accompany the greater responsibilty of increasing autonomy. This isn’t happening.
Currently, most part time occupiers are not intimately, if at all, involved in working groups. Perhaps we should be organising an initiative to encourage part timers to be involved in working groups. And insist upon increased transparency from, and access to, all the working groups.
Whatever the solution I wholeheartedly agree we need to better involve part timers like myself. Otherwise we part timers are just a crowd, sometimes unquestioningly, waving our hands in agreement with the ideas of a few.
Janet