Progressive social movements
The collapse of the centre in liberal democracy
Introduction
It is tempting to view polarisation in a rather simplistic manner, as an increasing distance between and strengthening of the far left and far right of the political spectrum. However, this conceptualisation smooths over the variance between different parts of the left and right (and the centre). It also creates a false equivalence between far-right and far-left forces, often disregarding the explicitly anti-democratic character of some far-right actors as opposed to the deep-seated belief in democracy epitomising the progressive left. In such a simplistic analysis, the only solution to problems of polarisation is a nostalgic return to ‘the centre’.“Articles question whether America can bridge the rift between democrat and republican forces or whether differences have become irreconcilable”
But, as I argue in this article, this ignores that the foundational compromise that underpinned the centre in liberal representative democracy has not been tenable since the 2008 economic crisis. Instead, progressive movements have chosen a different way to address the flaws of liberal democracy: they have attempted to reimagine democracy by advocating for alternative models of governance. This article outlines some of the core values underlining these movements’ democratic vision and considers the role of the media in this process.
The crisis of liberal democracy
The 2008 economic crisis was a turning point for liberal representative democracy since it eroded the system's foundational compromise: that between the free market and democratic equality. According to the political theorist Chantal Mouffe,1 modern representative democracy was developed within the cultural framework of liberalism. It thus combines the traditional democratic values of equality and popular sovereignty with a liberal belief in individual liberty and human rights. Liberal representative democracy also grew within a capitalist system, where liberty has become increasingly associated with the freedom of the market and individual enterprise. This has led to a conception of the citizen as an individual attempting to maximise their own interests, while political parties vie for their vote within a political marketplace.
This tenuous compromise can work in periods of relative affluence when there are enough resources to go around for the illusion of trickle-down economics to still hold some sway. Indeed, up until the economic crisis of 2008, most liberal representative democracies were governed by political parties that gravitated towards the liberal centre, advocating for some kind of Third Way politics that combined neoliberal economic policies with some redistribution through social welfare.“Such a minimal understanding of equality opens the way for powerful elites to have unfettered influence on the political system through lobbying and political donations”
Yet the economic crisis brought this liberal compromise to a standstill. The implementation of austerity policies, as well as the transgressions perpetrated by financial markets and the difficulty of governments to control them, fuelled an anger towards governing elites and their corruption. Thus, from 2008 onwards, the demand for equality and popular sovereignty have come back with a vengeance.
“the far-right's assertion of popular sovereignty is often driven by an authoritarian impulse to take power back by force”
Progressive social movements and visions of democracy
By contrast, progressive movements have responded to the post-2008 collapse of the liberal centre by attempting to reinvent democracy. The ‘squares movements’ of 2011 are a case in point. Inspired by the Arab Spring, which began in January 2011, people gathered in the square of Puerta del Sol in Madrid on 15 May 2011, demanding ‘real democracy’. Also called the Indignados – to signal their anger against the political and economic system – the movement spread quickly to other parts of Spain, and propelled similar protests in Greece at the end of May of that year. The Occupy movement appeared in the autumn of 2011, with Occupy Wall Street arising in New York in September and Occupy London beginning a month later in October. The last such movement to emerge in a mature liberal democracy was Nuit Debout in France in 2016.
The movements of the squares strove to imagine and practise a different type of democracy, one that attempted to escape the flaws of the liberal system. Regardless of whether these movements ultimately failed to change the model of democracy or to enforce their democratic values within their own system of governance, they still provided us with an alternative vision of democracy and a set of democratic values whose echoes can be heard in current movements such as Black Lives Matter and #FridaysForFuture.
First, the movements of the squares were motivated by an absolute belief in equality. Not the narrow equality of liberal representative democracy, but an expansive one that refers to “equality of power in determining the outcome of decisions”.4 This is linked to an intersectional understanding of power, one that considers how patriarchy, colonialism, racism, ableism and the class system severely limit the capacity of citizens to be treated as equals within the democratic system. The movements of the squares attempted to guarantee equality through inclusive systems of decision-making and the avoidance of central leadership, stressing instead the movements’ ‘leaderfulness’ where multiple people could play leadership roles. This more intersectional understanding of power was also evident in their grievances and the issues they addressed, which ranged from the economic system, to political corruption, to gender inequality, to climate change.
Second, the squares movements did not bracket economics out of politics, as liberal representative systems are prone to do. Based on an expansive notion of equality, these movements attempted to guarantee economic equality by managing their resources in ways that adhered to the values of the commons. Pointing to “collective forms of ownership”,5 the commons pose an alternative to capitalist relations of production, allowing every movement participant to contribute to and benefit from the movements’ resources. In the last couple of decades, this growing emphasis on the commons also stems from the increasing influence of free software and free culture movements, whose activists were also involved in the movements of the squares.
Third, the movements’ democratic system was centred around action. It offered a framework that empowered participants to embark on projects they were interested in – from creating an alternative social media platforms, to changing the state's economic policy, to keeping the movements’ kitchens going. They thus fostered a kind of ‘project democracy’, allowing people to become involved according to their skills and interests, as well as to develop their creative capacities and to learn by doing.
“This emphasis on care is a move away from the rather individualist understanding of the citizen in the liberal model, and a response to the ravaging of social welfare systems after the 2008 economic crisis”
Current movements: Black Lives Matter and the climate justice movement
These values are also evident in the practice and rhetoric of more recent movements such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the climate justice movement, which includes groups like Extinction Rebellion (XR) and #FridaysForFuture (FFF). At first glance, current movements seem more focussed on specific issues – racism and white supremacy for BLM or the environment in the case of FFF and XR. Their emphasis also appears to be on protest rather than experimenting with alternative systems of democracy.
However, a more in-depth view of these movements reveals that their grievances also refer to the political system and its inability to deliver radical change on these issues. Thus, BLM protesters are decrying the inherent racism of the court system in the US, which has often failed to indict or convict members of the police. Activists from the environmental movement are denouncing political corruption and the close relationship between political and economic elites, which prevent politicians from acting decisively around climate change. For these movements as well, the distance between governing elites and lay citizens and the limits of popular sovereignty are proving to be a bulwark against their success.
Furthermore, the policy platforms proposed by these movements and the principles that they attempt to practise in their own modes of operation are driven by some of the same values of equality, action, care and the commons that characterised the movements of the squares. When it comes to equality, both movements affirm the dignity of all people and are inclusive in their outlook. They attempt to operate with looser structures, avoiding central leadership and taking decisions democratically in a participatory way. As XR UK notes on its website: “In our rebellion we use deliberative decision making through people's assemblies.”9 XR goes a step further by making participatory democracy a central plank of its programme. The group is working “to encourage the growth in localised participatory democracy through the Future Democracy Hub and the Trust the People project” and demands that decisions on climate policy are made by citizens’ assemblies.10 The policy platform of BLM (initially published in 2016 and currently in a process of revision) also advocates for “[c]ommunity control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us”.11“both BLM and the current environmental movement are putting forward an intersectional analysis, highlighting the connections between gender, race, class and sexual orientation”
Both movements are inviting people to take action and to be directly involved in the movement regardless of their skills or knowledge. Both of them also revolve around care. BLM stresses the dignity of all people and the value of human life, and actively cares for communities in grief. XR places an emphasis on empathy and trust as key elements of the local participatory democracy it aims to build. XR and FFF are driven by a care for nature as a fundamental value. For current environmental movements, nature is not something to be exploited and conquered but something to care for and respect.
Such movements thus think of the natural environment as a commons shared by both humans and nonhuman species. This places nature outside of a capitalist logic, arguing for a different kind of economics that considers the cost of environmental destruction and challenges the myth of perpetual growth. Echoes of the commons are also found in the BLM policy platform, which demands “[e]conomic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership”.12
The role of the media
For many of these movements, the mainstream media are part of the problem rather than the solution. Activists criticise the media for their dependence on powerful interests and for acting as the mouthpiece of elite forces. They feel that their struggles are often misrepresented, trivialised or marginalised by the mainstream media, who fail to fulfil their democratic role: to hold the powerful to account and embody the voice of the people.“progressive movements have responded to the collapse of the liberal centre by attempting to reinvent democracy and assert popular sovereignty, placing equality, action, care and the commons at the centre of their endeavours”
Most of these movements have tried to engage strategically with the mainstream media. They have also attempted to build their own media based on their democratic values. Such movement media may facilitate action and equality by favouring inclusive editorial practices and inviting lay citizens to contribute to media reporting. They strive to be inclusive by addressing an audience that represents the people in all its diversity. They balance freedom of speech with care for news sources and news audiences. And they are often collectively owned and operating as cooperatives, a form of organising that follows the principles of the commons.
“in the project of reinventing democracy, the media are not simply conduits of information between the people and the elites that govern them. They are also platforms facilitating deliberation and participatory processes of decision-making”
Conclusion
Progressive movements have attempted to reinvent liberal representative democracy by stressing the values of equality, action, care and the commons in an effort to assert popular sovereignty. The media can play a twofold role in this process: they are not simply conduits of information but also arenas for deliberation and participatory decision-making that can now be scaled up much more easily with the use of digital platforms.
As recent events in the US show, liberal representative democracy is in deep crisis. Nostalgically returning to the myth of the liberal centre is not a viable solution. Instead, what we need is a willingness to reimagine our systems of governance and the right media to implement our vision at scale.
Citing Literature
Biography
Anastasia Kavada is a Reader in Media and Politics at the University of Westminster
