Reasons and Methods for Direct Action

Below is a general good read for those needing to understand some of the reasons and methods for Direct Action and pressure groups vs political lobbying approaches.

As you read this, please consider that since the demise of F4J (which tried to be a jack of all trades "insider" & "outsider", and failed) there have been at least two new political parties formed supporting the agenda of co-parenting and family law reforms. Therefore, don't get confused by thinking that Real FFJ is anywhere near being an "insider" and that is best left to dedicated moderates who can ride on the back of "external" pressure from the likes of RFFJ:

http://www.pressurepolitics.com/evidenc … n+business

This section looks at Direct action


[This section discusses insiders and direction action]

Groups switch strategies themselves without suffering loss of 'insider' status. To initiate a public protest against proposed changes in the law can be pursued at the same time as 'insider' strategies of arguing against them without loss of status. Government departments know and understand the aspirations of and constraints operating on group leaders and expect groups to make a loud noise on some things, and they will still invite them to participate in working groups and other participatory forums.


(Page, 1998, p. 1 1)

........

Tactics such as peaceful public demonstrations and letter writing campaigns are perfectly compatible with insider status, but more violent forms of direct action are not. It is evident that leaders of insider groups have from time to time tacitly encouraged various forms of protest by their members as a means of generating additional leverage against government in times of difficulty. However, they have always been worried about losing control of their members in such circumstances. This was evident in the mid-1970s when demonstrations by farmers against Irish beef imports led to railway lines being ripped up by 'flying pickets' of farmers and increasing anxiety among the leaders of farmers' unions that they would be accused by ministers of not being able to control their own members. These worries surfaced again in 1998 when farmers' union leaders welcomed demonstrations by members as evidence of the extent of their frustration, but became concerned when these demonstrations led to illegal acts.

The tensions of trying simultaneously to pursue an insider and an outsider strategy are well illustrated by the case of the environmental group, Greenpeace. Over the years, Greenpeace has shifted towards more dialogue with government and business while maintaining the direct action activities that attract the donations which sustain the organization. This change of approach was exemplified when Greenpeace held its first business conference in 1996. Those attending were told that the group's latest weapon was ... solutions enforcement". This meant pushing markets to adopt products that solved environmental problems' (Financial Times, 26 September 1996).

Although Greenpeace has continued to use direct action tactics, not everyone connected with the organization was happy about the shift of emphasis. As a consequence, divisions over strategy persist: 'The division in the movement between a moderate, rational campaigning approach that appeals alike to governments and to a cautious but persuadable public on the one side and the militant direct action radicalism that still attracts the pure green radicals remains unresolved' (O'Neill, 1995, p.31). As firms try to promote a 'greener' image, the executive director of Greenpeace international has lamented that it is becoming more difficult to pick 'good fights' (The Economist, 1 August 1998, p.79).

Nevertheless, Greenpeace is still perceived by decision makers as more radical than other environmental groups. It is the only one of the leading environmental organizations represented in Brussels not to have been comissioned by the European institutions for investigative work (Greenwood, 1997: p. 190). It is the only leading environmental organization that 'does not receive funding from the European Commission. This corresponds with Greenpeace's policy of maintaining political and financial independence' (Webster, 1998: p. 1 80). Yet this outsider image is at odds with adverts for senior Greenpeace staff which seek political advisers with a business or intergovernmental background to provide 'strategic direction to campaigns and interface with high-level contacts in government, international secretariats and industry'. Given such a Janus-faced profile, no wonder that stories surface from time to time of tensions within the organization, although its hierarchical character and the fact that it has 'supporters' rather than 'members' help to stifle dissent.

What is really going on is that Greenpeace is shifting towards an insider strategy, but the process is not yet complete: 'Greenpeace is turning away from confrontation and public debate as ways to influence industry and moving to "positive persuasion" of manufacturers by playing their own game' (Eden, 1996: p.49).

Greenpeace's skill at using the media by providing 'a sort of "convenience news" of pictures, imagery and story lines' (Jordan, 1998b, p-16) has helped to maintain their public image as an organization that gets things done by challenging mighty multinationals on the high seas in inflatable boats. Their short term successes such as defeating Shell over its plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at sea attract considerable publicity whereas their unsuccessful campaign to stop expansion of oil exploitation in the Atlantic was largely unreported. At some point, however, the declining number of supporters (2.5 million worldwide in 1998 compared with a peak of 4.1 million in 1991) will come to realize that an outsider group has completed the transformation to an insider group, that the 'lounge suits' within the organization have finally defeated the 'rubber suits'. Simultaneously pursuing an insider and outsider strategy is a transitional phase and eventually a group has to opt for predominantly one strategy or the other (usually an insider approach).

[This section discusses the role of pressure groups in democracy...]

Pressure Groups and Democracy

There is a fundamental link between the existence of pressure groups and the very survival of a system of democratic government. Freedom of association is a fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy permits the existence of groups, but it could also be argued that groups contribute to the quality of the decision-making process. Those that have axes to grind may have something to say that is relevant to the issue under consideration.

A system of representative democracy offers electors a relatively infrequent choice between alternative party programmes..........

http://www.pressurepolitics.com/evidenc … n+business


Table 7.1 A typology of direct action

Form of action: Protest marches
Legality: Usually legal
Purpose: To demonstrate to decision-makers scale of support and concern on an issue

Form of action: Boycotts
Legality: Legal
Purpose: To inflict commercial punishment on a firm

Form of action: Stunts
Legality: May be marginally
Purpose: To focus attention illegal on an issue through publicity

Form of action: Blockades, occupations, other disruption
Legality: Open to civil action, increasingly crimninalised
Purpose: Exertion of direct pressure or target to inhibit or prevent activities

Form of action: Destruction of property
Legality: Illegal
Purpose: Bringing activity to an end

Form of action: Violence against individuals
Legality: Criminal
Purpose: Punishing those individuals seen as responsible for 'immoral' acts