The movement power method also aims to resolve the main contradictions that have plagued social movements throughout history. The claim is the movement can include – or sublate – apparently opposing approaches and in doing so improve its effectiveness. These antinomies include unity and autonomy; the hierarchical and horizontal; centralisation and decentralisation; prefigurative and strategic theories of change; symbolic and instrumental protests. Engler and Saavedra present the method as a ‘hybrid’, a resolution of the contradiction between the structure and movement traditions of civil resistance.
A single individual can initiate a mass movement, according to the movement power approach. This is made possible by “frontloading”. Frontloading refers to the fact that before any movement is launched its “DNA” needs to be carefully designed, its first activists need to be recruited and mass trainings need to be underway – and getting take-up. The first activists might spend years frontloading before the first public protests take place.
The DNA is designed to ensure the movement will deliver a clear set of demands within existing power structures. The term DNA is used to describe the entire blueprint for the organisation, including its analysis (context), its constitution (the core) and its activities (praxis). The DNA can be understood as the constitution, the rule book, for the movement. The DNA, when well designed, provides the necessary structure to secure unity and coherence while also allowing new recruits a high level of autonomy. It institutionalises centralisation and hierarchy – but in a deliberately limited way. Minimal rules must be asserted to allow the maximum freedom for the activists on the front line.
The DNA is a coherent, organic system that includes all the necessary elements for a successful mass movement. The DNA includes context, core, and praxis. Context, described above, includes the analysis of the spectrum of support, pillars of support and polarisation of support. The core includes 1. Ethics, subdivided into a. values, b. principles and c. rules of the organisation; 2. Story, or the theory of change, including a. the meta strategy, b. meta narrative and c. meta branding and then 3. the constitution, governing a. affinity groups, b. teams, and c. decision-making bodies.
Praxis includes the design and deployment of three phases of campaigns which will include 1. direct action, 2. escalation and 3. absorption. Action, in turn, includes: a. demands (symbolic and instrumental), b. tactics and c. methods (prefigurative and strategic). Escalation requires a cycle of momentum through: a. action agreements, b. trigger events and c. moments of the whirlwind. Finally, absorption is achieved using a ladder of engagement through a. commitment, b. mass training and c. retention.
Each of these elements is described below.
1.CONTEXT
The first stage of frontloading can be described as establishing context. The individual or collective of activists need to understand the environment in which they will operate – the terrain of struggle. This work could also be described as a conjunctional analysis, or as stakeholder mapping. This might take the form of a systems theory analysis. The aim, simply, is to have a clear understanding of the change you want to make, who will support you and who can stop you from delivering that change.
A distinguishing feature of the movement power method is a clear understanding of the way power in society is structured. The methodology assumes that power ultimately rests with the people, and potentially with the movement. Change happens through the action of mass movements, not because elites become more enlightened. The overriding objective at all times is to develop “active popular support” and to increase the power of the movement.
The method examines power through three moments: how people relate to the campaign (the spectrum of support); how the opposition maintains its power (the pillars of support); and how the campaign can shift opinion towards supporting the campaign and away from the opposition (the polarisation of support). The actual work therefore involves building the base of supporters, recruiting those who are currently neutral on the issue and leveraging this mass, broad-based, support to force the opposition to meet the demands.
Spectrum of support
The activists will identify who is with them – and who is against them. However, this analysis must go further than a simple dyad of supporter versus opposition (and indeed the Karpman drama triangle of victim, rescuer and persecutor). The objective is to map three zones: supporters, neutrals and opposition. Each zone is internally differentiated between active, persuadable and passive. The spectrum shifts from ‘active support’ through ‘persuadable neutrals’ to ‘active opposition’. The tactics deployed by the movement are tailored to one or more of these nine ‘colours’ of the spectrum. The movement needs to “build the base” of support. The participants must always speak to its actual values, promote those values in its actions, and recruit people who share those values. This approach should not be confused with triangulation, where political actors adopt the values of the neutrals or opposition to gain their support, as this is unprincipled and self-defeating over time.
Pillars of support
The campaign wants to tear down the pillars of support on which the power holder, the power holder, relies. Even autocratic despots do not, in reality, have absolute, monolithic power. They depend on the support of individual people, institutions, and classes. A monarch will need a military, a civil service, a legal system including prisons and a police, and ‘soft power’ such as the media and universities. The power holder must maintain these ‘pillars of support’ to survive – and ignore the demands of the movement. Tactics can be used to move the people who maintain the pillars of support towards the campaign or away from the autocrat. The campaign can win significant demands when the pillars of support start to crumble.
Polarisation of support
The campaign actively aims to “polarise” the public. A positive polarisation galvanises your current support, attracts the neutrals and marginalises and fractures the opposition. This means taking action that shifts the majority of the neutrals towards actively supporting the movement – even when this very action might cause some to increase their support for the opposition. The tactics – be they street protests or petitions – are primarily aimed at achieving active popular support, changing popular perceptions, gaining hegemony. This is quite different from professional campaigners lobbying politicians directly, and usually discreetly. The campaign rules out any tactics that involve a small clique of protesters making compromises with the elite of decision makers. Beyond ethical considerations, the method of building active popular support pragmatically rules out using proactive acts of violence.
2.THE CORE
The second stage for the initiating activist is writing the DNA of the organisation. The context – the analysis of the structure of power – will determine the design of the movement. The DNA decides how the movement is internally structured (core) and how it interacts with the outside world (praxis). The DNA of the core includes the ethics, the story and the constitution of the movement. These are universal, and must be adopted by every person who becomes a member of the movement. The values, principles and rules need to be coherent: they should not contradict each other. The DNA should be transferred to the members through action agreements and mass trainings.
The DNA is designed to be immutable, impermeable, and non-negotiable. But like real DNA, it must come into contact with reality. The initiating activists will recruit a meta facilitation team. The meta facilitators are tasked with keeping the DNA intact for as long as possible, knowing that ultimately it will be distorted and even destroyed. The meta facilitators can be understood as, and even called, the board of trustees, the standing orders committee, or the civil service. For organisations that favour classical democracy, the meta facilitation team may be elected by the total membership or general assembly. Falkvinge describes the DNA and the staff that maintain it as being a scaffold, and emphasises that it must always serve the swarm. “The role of this scaffolding is not directing and controlling the masses.”
ETHICS
Values
A movement should be defined by three key values. The coherence of the collective of activists is achieved because of the fact everyone shares these values. The values might include transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. These values determine both the demands of the movement – a call for government to be more accountable, for example – and also the behaviour of the movement – a commitment for the meta facilitation team to be accountable to the members. The values people already hold are likely to be similar across movements using this methodology. If an activist does not agree with the values of the movement, they should disengage but are free to set up a different organisation with the same aims but manifesting those alternative values.
Principles
The individual or team that initiates the movement should inscribe its principles, usually 12 clear statements that express the values in a more concrete way. The meta facilitation team has a responsibility to ensure that the members of the organisation are able and willing to embody these principles, which are non-negotiable. This also means that the DNA must include only those principles that are self-evidently necessary and acceptable to new recruits to the movement.
Rules
The movement needs rules. These should cascade naturally from the values and principles. The rules must be necessary, and should be as narrow in scope as possible because they will limit the autonomy of those who choose to participate. The activists in the movement will accept the rules on the basis that fellow activists acting in the interests of the movement have implemented only those rules that are actually necessary. Rules might, for example, preclude bullying and intimidation. Falkvinge in Swarmwise proposes the “golden rule” that activists should never criticise each other’s work. If you do not like an initiative, you simply start an opposite initiative. The rules can include limits to the founding principles. An obvious rule would be that anyone who commits sexual assault will be excluded. The principle of inclusion is therefore interpreted to mean, firstly, that people need to be safe in movement spaces. This overrides any right of a perpetrator to be included.
STORY
Theory of change
The DNA will also present a clear and coherent story about the movement. The story must include the theory of change. Activists will dedicate their lives to a movement only if they believe that it will be successful, or at least make significant progress towards its goals. The theory of change is a clear explanation of the context, the desired outcome, the action the movement will take, and how such action will deliver the intended result. The story includes the meta strategy, the meta narrative and the meta branding. The ‘meta’ indicates that the movement will have a single story that explains and determines all of its activities. The meta elements sit at a higher level of abstraction, with the concrete phases, campaigns and tactics cascading downwards. The theory of change may be strategic – leveraging specific members of the public to call for a specific improvement from a specific power holder (such as a politician); or prefigurative – staging symbolic protests that raise awareness and shift public opinion towards more progressive attitudes (that power holders then have to appeal to).
Meta strategy
The meta strategy could be considered the most important part of the DNA. The meta strategy is necessary to ensure that everyone engaged in the movement has the same aim, objectives, and the same basic methodology for success. The aim is singular, and ensures unity in action. The aim will then differentiate into three identifiable objectives, usually expressed as demands. In many cases the three demands will each be delivered in three consecutive phases. The phases include the campaigns, which are in turn delivered through a series of tactics. The DNA does not provide concrete plans for the campaigns and tactics: these are designed and deployed by the frontline activists with full autonomy from any central leadership.
Engler explains: “You need to understand what your movement is going to do in order to win, and then what the general phases are to get to that aim. Then in each phase different local groups have autonomy in terms of which campaigns they work on, and devise their own tactics. The structure of the strategy therefore allows for greater autonomy in tactics. Once you establish the aim, the grand strategic objective, most people will agree on the phases. Then people can do whatever they want for campaigns, and vote with their feet in deciding which campaigns and tactics to join and make happen.”
Meta narrative
The story must include a single high level meta narrative. This story describes the theory of change in a way that new activists can relate to and will sign up to. The meta narrative should be simple and accessible. It should correspond to reality, and people’s lived experiences. The importance of storytelling in public communications has in recent decades been increasingly appreciated. Activists may even want to turn to Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces to understand the universal elements of storytelling and use all or some of the structure to tell the story of the campaign. The meta narrative can contain multiple sub-narratives. A simple narrative in Britain might be: we want clean water and low bills; but the people who own the water companies are corrupt and motivated by greed; they are allowing our rivers to be polluted while grabbing massive dividends; we need to bring water back into public ownership, but the political parties have been co-opted; we must join together in a mass movement, which includes trade unions, to force the politicians to nationalise the water infrastructure.
Meta branding
The movement needs meta branding. A single symbol which is easily identifiable shows perfectly that the movement has a clear aim and a unified metanarrative. People often find it hard to emotionally relate to a group of hundreds of people they have never met, or to an abstract concept such as a demand. However, people relate to brands, symbols and images. A distinguishing feature of the movement power model is a commitment to ‘open source’. This means activists can use the brand, styling, colour palette and digital resources of the movement without asking permission of a leadership, a founder, or individual owners of intellectual property rights.
CONSTITUTION
The DNA inscribes the constitution of the movement. The constitution of the movement power organisation is distinct from any private company, almost all NGOs, and indeed traditional campaign groups due to the amount of autonomy that is afforded to frontline activists. The activist must learn the DNA in its entirety; the membership is expected to operate within the scope set by the DNA; the DNA allows for complete autonomy at the levels of campaigns and tactics. The DNA of the organisation needs to be disseminated to and within the various groups, teams and decision making bodies.
Affinity groups
The centre of the movement power constitution is the three activists rule. The rule is simply: “If three activists agree that something is good for the organisation, they have a green light to act in the organisation’s name.” The rule is based on the principle that activists “deserve people’s confidence and trust.” The corollary is that “no one is allowed to empower himself or herself to restrict others”. Any three people can form an affinity group. In most cases an affinity group will form to deliver or participate in a tactic – such as a street protest. Larger, more stable groups will become teams. Twelve or more people can form a whole new organisation.
Activists are required, as well as encouraged, to make decisions, to be courageous, to discuss and promote. The activists, by directing their labour, decide the success or otherwise of the groups and teams. The activists can “vote with their feet” and join any campaign, take part in any tactic. Any activist can form a group and initiate a campaign. They will also design the structure of the campaign, including creating and delegating roles. Activists should empower “groups that form around accomplishing specific tasks” and leave subgroups that are dysfunctional. The activists will “gravitate by themselves to a subtask where they can help deliver the desired result.”
Teams
The teams within the organisation retain the highest level of autonomy from the centre. Activists are encouraged to join or leave any campaign or tactic of their choosing. They are also invited to work within one or more teams. The unity of action across the movement is not achieved through managerial instruction or voting. The members of the team have to assume responsibility for delivering the DNA, for actualising the metastrategy. The meta facilitation team is responsible for ensuring the longevity of the DNA, making sure activists act within the principles and remain focused on the metastrategy. This team must not act like classical leadership.
Teams might be formed to deliver a specific tactic, to manage a campaign, or to ensure the coherence of a phase of the strategy. The teams might want to form around themes – such as climate, utility bills, renewable energy – or around a particular function – such as making calls, recruiting members, holding mass trainings, or fundraising. The activists do not answer to team leaders. Further, there is no assignment or micro-supervision. Falkvinge suggests that any leaders that do emerge should only do so through “swarm meritocracy” – running effective teams that attract effective activists. There must be no financial or organisational advantage to being in a specific team or having a function within a team. The media team is critical to the movement. The public often learns about social movements through the media, even where the saturation of press and broadcasting is on the decline. The importance of press work therefore is hard to overstate. For Falkvinge the autonomy of the press team is, nonetheless, sacrosanct. He states: “This sub-swarm should be autonomous and have full authorisation to speak independently on behalf of the swarm.” Many movement power practitioners disagree with this position.
Bodies
The constitution needs to design decision making bodies. The affinity groups and teams will only make decisions that affect members of those groups and teams. However, there does need to be unity in action and coherence across the movement. More people will contribute as the movement grows. Naturally, they will want to be part of the decision-making process. The movement can, in some cases, organise a general assembly of all members to discuss the existing or proposed rules that impact all of the members. These assemblies can also respond to significant events that might require a reappraisal of the strategy. The DNA developed for the movement needs to establish the aim and scope of the assembly, with a simple, fair and transparent process for activists to publicise their initiatives and address any concerns. The DNA meta facilitation team might take responsibility for ensuring the assemblies take place. Falkvinge recommends using a “consensus circle” with a veto for every attendee. However, he emphasises this must be used for emergencies or exceptional circumstances only. How activists engaged in the movement make decisions (be it through a form of democratic voting or otherwise) is not sufficiently defined or resolved in the current movement power model. The foundational contradiction between autonomy and accountability still needs to be resolved.
