For all the hoopla surrounding the Occupy movement in its early days, the movement seems to be slowly fizzling out. Some encampments like OWS in Zucotti Park have been ordered to evacuate, on the grounds that freedom of expression doesn’t mean a freedom to start building tent cities in parks. Others are starting to resemble squatting areas. The initial revolutionary zeal is all but gone.
Is this the end of the Occupy movement?
I certainly hope not, but it is good everyone’s starting to lose patience with it. Just a month ago, the movement grabbed the world’s attention as the first ever transcontinental revolution under one banner. Having groups of people setting up camp smack in the middle of global financial hubs was a curious sight. The movement has done a good job of decrying the exploitation of the 99 percent by the one percent.
Alas, that is all Occupy has achieved so far. The world has a short attention span, and the window of opportunity for the movement to trigger real, substantive change is quickly closing. It is time for the Occupy movement to evolve.
Maybe court rulings kicking tent settlements out of public spaces is just what the movement needs.
For one, it allows protestors to go back to the comfort of their homes with heads held high. Revolution fatigue is starting to set in for many, and while they may rile when the police comes to evacuate them, I suspect many might be secretly relieved that they don’t have to spend winter out in the cold, with only their integrity to keep them warm.
More importantly though, getting the boot might be just the incentive Occupy needs to regroup and rethink their next moves. If Occupy wants any chance of long term success, it needs to go mainstream. Yes, it may claim to represent the 99 percent, but 98.9 percent of the people are not participating in Occupy. If Occupy is serious about change, they have to organize themselves politically and start strategizing. Camping out in small groups indeterminately is not strategy; it cements Occupy’s position on the fringe of politics.
Political organization can mean creating a political party, but not necessarily. I think the Occupy movement’s greatest potential is in political campaigning.
Political campaigning is the deliberate effort to influence political decisions. It requires strategy, which is why the movement needs to start prioritizing its goals. Occupy has to evolve from a general expression of anger and frustration at the world’s ills to become coherent and constructive force. To do this, it has to deal with injustice in a systematic way: attack one (or a few) specific piece(s) of unjust legislation, and demand politicians to change it. Focus on that one thing and press until change happens, and when it does, move on to the next piece of unfair legislation.
Sounds simple, but why is that not done yet?
I think we’re still waiting for a visionary figure to emerge from the faceless crowds of the Occupy movement. Like it or not, just as much as Occupy is about the masses and not any one person, movements have traditionally relied on symbols and leaders to unify people. The reason is simple: it’s easier for people to relate to people than ideas. That’s why many civil liberties we know today are synonymous with individual names: Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Lincoln. If Occupy is to have any clout, it stands a better chance when an individual gives it voice.
Who is this individual? I don’t have a clue. Ideally, someone competent and intelligent to set the political agenda, yet selfless. Someone who could be in the one percent but chooses not to be. Someone with the charisma to capture our hearts and minds. Sadly, in this age of Twitter where dirt is so easily uncovered, this someone becomes even more elusive.
One thing remains clear to me: if that someone isn’t found, Occupy’s getting kicked out for good.
