By Bill Moyer

1. Social Movements Are Proven To Be Powerful

Social movements have been a powerful means for ordinary people to participate directly in creating positive social change, particularly when formal channels for democratic political participation do not work. Social movements helped end slavery, create labor unions and child labor laws, attain women’s suffrage, end atmospheric nuclear testing, achieve many civil rights for blacks, women, gays and lesbians, end the Vietnam War, oust dictators, challenge South African Apartheid, curb the cold war, and move Eastern Bloc nations toward democracy. Almost every positive aspect of American society has been influenced by successful people’s movements. Social movements are more numerous and powerful than ever. Much acclaim is given to the social movements of the 1960s, but those of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were bigger and more numerous.

2. Movements Are At The Center of Society

Most social movements are not exceptional [or] rare protest events on society’s fringe, and activists are not anti-social rebels. Quite the contrary, progressive nonviolent social movements are at the center of society’s “historicity,” the ongoing process of society evolving and redefining itself. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, a chief purpose of social movements is “to fulfill the American Dream, not to destroy it.” Social movements are deeply grounded in our founding values of justice, democracy, civil right, security, and freedom. In contrast, they oppose vested interests that use public offices and corporate institutions in ways that violate these principles. Implication: Social movements, therefore, must consciously articulate society’s central value and sensibilities. Almost all ordinary citizens consider themselves patriots; that is, they strongly believe in the positive values of their country. Movement activists will be successful only to the extent that they can convince the great majority of people that the movement, and not the powerholders, truly represent society’s values and sensibilities. In contrast, movements are self-destructive to the extent that they define themselves as being rebels on the fringes of society who oppose the majority and are trying to overthrow core social values and structures.

3. The Real Issue Is Social Justice Vs. Vested Interest

The experience of social movements is consistent with Arnold Toynbee’s dictum that the real struggle in the world is between vested interests and social justice. An elite minority holds enormous political, economic, and social power and influence, which they use to benefit a minority of elites at the expense of society’s majority. In their attempt to promote democracy, justice, peace, ecological sustainability, and the general social welfare, social movements must oppose the excessive power and influence of the elite powerholders. The consequence of such opposition is, inevitably, conflict with the political, economic, and corporate powerholders—whether they be military contractors wanting to increase the military budget and prolong the nuclear arms race, doctors wanting to undermine guaranteed health care, or logging companies wanting to destroy the remaining old-growth forests. The struggle between vested interests and social welfare will be intensified with the growing crises during in the 1990s. Implication: In the face of this inevitable struggle, movement activists must neither become discouraged nor believe their movement is losing when powerholders do not change their minds or policies. Even though a social movement may be supported by a majority who opposes current policies and condition, powerholders will fight until it becomes in their interest to change.

4. The Grand Strategy Is To Promote Participatory Democracy

The grand strategy of social movements is to promote participatory democracy through people power, in which an ever-increasing majority of ordinary citizen is alerted, won over, and becomes involved in addressing critical social problems and achieving progressive change.

The lack of democracy is a major source of social problems. The American system increasingly exemplifies that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When a society functions to support the self-serving interests of its privileged few, lack of concern for the welfare of all people helps to engender environmental destruction, massive poverty, reduced social programs, vast military expenditures, support of Third World dictators, and global military intervention.

Political power ultimately rests with the general population. The official power-holders in any society can only rule as long as they have the consent of the people. Ultimately, the general population will give this consent only as long as those who govern are perceived to be upholding the public trust and the basic morals, values, and interests of the whole society. (That is why all governments — including those of the democratic West as well as the harshest dictatorships — spend enormous money and effort trying to justify their power and policies to the ordinary public, wrapping them in terms of widely-accepted values and traditions.) There have been remarkable examples of the power of ordinary citizens to overthrow even brutal Stalinist dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc nations. Participatory democracy, led by social movement people-power, therefore, is a key to facing the awesome problems that confront us today and to establishing a more humane world. The resolution of today’s problems require an informed, empowered and politicized population that assertively demands democracy, justice, security, equality, human welfare, peace, and ecological preservation.

5. Social Movements Focus on Winning Over Ordinary Citizens, not Powerholders

Social change happens only when the majority of citizens are alerted, educated, and motivated to be concerned about a problem. Social movements are only as powerful as the power of their grassroots support. The chief task of the activist, therefore, is to focus on and to win over the public, not to change the minds and policies of official powerholders. Implication: The formal powerholders will not change their policies until there is overwhelming pressure from the general population. Ignoring this reality is a chief source of activists’ feelings of powerlessness and movement failure. When powerholders fail to respond to initial movement demands, many activists become depressed and angry. This can lead to burnout, dropout, unnecessary compromises, or aimless rebelliousness. This creates a cycle of increased failure, because rebellious acts alienate the general public, the true source of movement power.

6. Success is a Long-Term Process, Not An Event

The process of putting a social problem on society’s agenda, winning a large majority, and subsequently achieving long-range movement goals (such as cutting the military budget in half and curbing the cold war) occurs over many years. This lengthy process includes reaching many sub-goals along the way.

Implications: Activists should evaluate their movement by how well it is moving along the road of success, not by whether it has achieved its long-term goals. And activists should develop strategies and tactics that advance their movement along the next segment of the road, instead of trying to achieve the long-range goals directly—and feeling they have failed because those long-range goals have not yet been reached.

7. Social Movements Must Be Nonviolent

Following Gandhi and King, the ideology and method of nonviolence provides social movements with the optimum opportunity to win over and involve the general citizenry in people power because:

• Nonviolence is based on timeless national, cultural, human, and religious values and principles such as equality, security, preservation, justice, democracy, love, forgiveness, caring, compassion, and understanding.
• Nonviolence appeals to these values and principles held by people and nations
• Nonviolence is less threatening to ordinary citizens.
• Nonviolence (unlike militaristic or violent methods) allows everyone to participate: women men, elderly, youth and even children; people from all traditional levels of strength and weakness.
• In nonviolence, the means are consistent with the ends—they are the ends in the making.
• Nonviolence has the capacity to reduce the effectiveness of police and state violence—the powerholder’s ultimate weapon — and to turn it to the movement’s advantage.
• A clear policy of nonviolence makes it difficult for agent provocateurs to disrupt or discredit movements by promoting internal violence, hostility, dissension, dishonesty and confusion.
• Successful social movements need participants and organizations that effectively play four different roles: citizen, rebel, social change agent, and reformer.

Steps Of A Nonviolent Strategy

We need a carefully developed strategy in order to transform social injustice and its underlying cultural assumptions. The following six steps are key phases of a nonviolent strategy, adapted from the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Alvaro Diaz.

1) Information Gathering and Analysis

• In approaching any injustice that we want to transform, we need to know the facts and factors of the situation. We need to understand the policy or condition "in the round" — from every angle.
• First, this means carefully describing this policy and its consequences.
• Second, this means identifying the power relations: who holds the power? We have to understand the position of the opponent and her or his interests that underlie this position. Who are the allies of the opponent? What are the cultural attitudes or assumption that keep this policy in place? In other words, how is this policy sustained?
• But this also means analyzing the power of those opposing the policy. As Gene Sharp writes in The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973), political power ultimately rests with the general population. Power is not a magical substance invested in policy-makers; in fact, policy-makers rely on the consent of the people. We need to analyze the ways the population has given its tacit or overt support to this policy.
• These steps, then, are part of the Gandhian process of identifying the truth of the situation: the truth and untruth of our position, and the truth and untruth of the opponent’s position.

2) Choosing a Concrete Objective

• This is based on our analysis and must address an injustice that violates central human and cultural values.

3) Dialogue

• Using intelligence and persistence, communicate to the other party the list of injustices and your concrete plan for addressing and resolving these injustices. Look for what is positive in the actions and statements the opposition makes. Do not seek to humiliate the opponent but find creative ways to call forth the good in the opponent. Look for ways in which the opponent can also win.

4) Securing Public Support

• If change does not occur, we must next secure public support for change. This involves a broad effort to educate the public, and at the same time, to build alliances with key organizations. This phase includes the development of "public participation events" (interfaith services, marches, petitions, phone-in campaigns, etc.).

5) Action

• Nonviolent direct action is taken to move the opponent to work with you to resolve the injustices when the other means of persuasion have not reached the objective. These actions need to reveal with the greatest clarity the injustice being denounced. Such actions should be designed to give the largest number of people possible the opportunity to participate.
• Direct action introduces a "creative tension" into the conflict. It is most effective when it illustrates the injustice it seeks to correct.

6) Resolution and Reconciliation

• Education, dialogue and action can create the conditions for a humane alternative to the identified injustice.
• This alternative addresses the specific issue at hand, and changes the dynamics between the opponents. Nonviolence seeks friendship and understanding with the opponent. Nonviolence is directed against evil systems, forces, oppressive policies, and unjust acts, not against persons.
• Reconciliation includes the opponent being able to "save face." Each act of genuine reconciliation is one step closer to the goal of human life, which Martin Luther King, Jr. called the "Beloved Community."
• Both the individuals and the entire community are empowered. With this comes new struggles for justice and a new beginning.