What happens after the rally? Four ideas for strengthening the campaign against the cuts
Politics in the UK is at a crossroads. The government has presented its vision of a radical overhaul to public spending. A community-based movement involving unions and community organisations is building opposition to this agenda, with the major rally on Saturday 26 March.
But like all coalitions between different community-based organisations, the challenge is how a coalition like this can go from holding a one-off mobilisation into a sustained movement that builds an alternative vision for how the United Kingdom should be governed.
As I argue in Power in Coalition, there is a series of strategies is needed for building strong coalitions. These lessons are based on the experiences of three long-term coalitions in the Canada, US and Australia. Here, four useful lessons are identified for those keen to develop and achieve a people-centred vision for the UK.
1. Less is more
Against much conventional wisdom, smaller coalitions tend to be more powerful in the long term than larger ones. A smaller number of organisations who share a greater commonality of values or interest in an issue, and have a higher degree of commitment to engage their membership and resources, and are better placed to work together for the long term than a very broad and diverse network that only has a lowest common denominator of common interests and commitment holding it together.
The campaign against the cuts, up until now, has followed the “bigger is better” model of coalition building. This broad based strategy was designed to coordinate a diversity of voices. It makes sense that its first public demonstration is about expressing that diverse unity of purpose.
But, if it is to successfully develop new policy agendas the campaign must identify new ways of bringing organisations together. Highly diverse coalitions find it very easy to identify what they are against, but frequently struggle to say precisely what they are for – let alone develop winnable, actionable issues on which they can seek to make change.
This “movement for alternatives” could begin to canvas concrete policy alternatives by coordinating smaller action groups working on specific issues. Indeed, the campaign could act as a clearing house for pairing mutually interested groups on new policies (think unions and climate change groups working on a green jobs strategy), then it could be a very effective space for not just “resisting” change, but presenting concrete alternatives.
The grassroots collaborative in Chicago that waged a fight for a big-box living wage gives us a guide for how to make this work. It brought together a relatively small network of organisations – just 10 – but each had the ability to turn out their membership base. They also had a commitment to building solid relationships, and actually spent considerable time in breakfast meetings getting to know each other relationally before developing a common agenda.
When it came to working on issues, the foundation of strong relationships and trust allowed the coalition to let a power analysis and scrutiny of strategic opportunities drive its priorities. So over time the coalition moved from issues like an amnesty for undocumented workers to state budget issues to living wages, not just because these issues were always rigidly the number one for each organisation, but because they were the most strategically likely to be won at the time. There was a give and take – and a recognition that winning on one strategic issue, even if it wasn’t your issue, might make it easier to win on your issue in the future.
2. Focus on building relationships as well as holding events
The campaign against the cuts could play a key role in cultivating stronger relationships across its diverse network at the same time as it works on issues.
Activists are always “crazy busy” with the latest campaign or issue. But there is a difference between working hard and smart. We sometimes need to sharpen our sword – and build more resources and power in our networks – as well as working with what we have.
Face-to-face relationships are vital. While new movements like UK Uncut must be commended for their innovative tactics around corporate taxation, lasting social change will require strong bonds of trust between people and community-based organisations. Only there can collective action be sustained and long term strategies conceived.
Community based organisations spend a lot of time asking people to do things, or planning how to do stuff together, rather than really knowing why we are all doing this in the first place. But knowing why we do what we do, and lifting that up to be central in how we work together, can help stimulate our long term dedication.
Bridge builder staff and activists help build stronger relationships. The staff employed both by coalitions like the Grassroots Collaborative and the Ontario Health Coalition actively built this relational culture. They helped organisations that had very distinctive ways of working to build an understanding across their differences. They negotiated tensions.
3. Pursuing agenda setting demands rather than just saying no
When attacked by shrinking budgets, unemployment and reactionary racism, it is often easiest to mount campaigns that “say no”: no to war, no to public sector cuts, no to education cuts.
But, we need to be conscious of the limits of “no” campaigns. These campaigns still dance on the terrain of the person we are saying no to. They rarely are able to set an agenda for the kind of economy or society that works for us.
The March 26 rally is called “Rally for the Alternative” and talks about the need for government growth and investment as a strategy to deal with budgetary challenges. However, developing a concrete winnable alternative vision is a real challenge. It not only takes a commitment to a positive agenda around growth and investment, but the identification of specific, winnable policy alternatives that can be suggested and won. Only then would the coalition be successfully shifting the political climate in the UK.
In researching coalitions, I repeatedly found that coalitions that pursued new demands – like the public education campaign for reduced school class sizes for young children or living wages – were the most successful at shifting the political climate to be more supportive of progressive issues. For instance, in Canada, an anti-privatisation campaign had in-built limitations for setting a new direction for the health care system. In the media and public mind, there was a popular recognition that the health care system was in crisis and needed changing, and while the coalition was able to voice its opposition to negative reforms, they did not provide their own vision for the kind of reforms they would like. It made it difficult to sustain public support for their campaign, and allowed their opposition to get the upper hand.
4. Make the coalition work locally, regionally and across the country
To build and move an agenda, successful coalitions need to take action at multiple scales – across the nation, in our cities and in our suburbs.
For example, in 2001-2 the Ontario Health Coalition built a multi-scaled coalition around health care – where a set of provincial organisations came together in Toronto, and then supported the building of dozens of local health care coalitions in regional cities like Kingston, Niagara and Thunder Bay. The health care movement was able to reach across the diverse geography of the province because activists, organisations and leaders located in different towns and cities anchored the coalition.
The coalition was most successful when local town-based coalitions had some autonomy to determine “how” they ran the campaign, and could structure activity based on their local idiosyncrasies and strengths. They were weaker when they were told what to do by leaders in Toronto. The coalition as a whole was at its best when the local groups had enough control to mix local campaigns, such as a campaign around a specific hospital privatisation, with a broader provincial agenda around health care.
The anti-cuts campaign is already working with different regional centres, and groups in London. But how can this coalition build and sustain a national movement over the coming years through linking local and national activity?
One possibility is that the campaign develops a broad umbrella narrative about policy alternatives that are connected to local issue based campaigns and actions. This is like what happened with the 2005-7 Your Rights at Work campaign in Australia. This campaign built around industrial relations leading up to the 2007 Federal Election. In this campaign individual union contract or organising campaigns were defined as being about “Your Rights at Work.” This fed bottom-up energy into a nationally consistent agenda because Your Rights at Work became tied to specific and meaningful local struggles, as well as a broader national political agenda. Of course, the national campaign still had key national demands and messages, but they became concrete when linked to specific local campaigns. We can see this already with specific campaigns around local cuts to libraries or health clinics. Sustaining the local by linking it to a national narrative may help to counter a risk, which is that the campaign against the cuts remains just a slogan, rather than being used to build a consensus around common public policy goals.
Successful multi-scaled coalitions also provide space for local city and state based coalitions to feed-up strategies to the national scale. The Ontario Health Coalition managed this by providing the local groups with a seat at the table. The coalition’s Administrative Committee not only included province wide organisations but many of the most active local groups – so they could have their discrete needs and ideas voiced as part of the broader strategy.
These strategies may help the campaign think through how it can provide meaningful voices for regional groups, and ensure that it isn’t a conversation from the top down
It is a time for coalitions and collaboration in the UK, but most importantly, these formations need to be powerful. It is hoped that these lessons may be helpful in thinking through how to sustain powerful coalitions and build a new progressive economic and social agenda.