Subject: [Long] The Politics of the Rainbow Gathering
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:52:38 -0700
From: Marty <[email protected]>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Newsgroups: alt.gathering.rainbow
(Note: This is my own opinion about Rainbow Gatherings based on my
attendance at a few of the events.)
There are no official organizers or leaders at Rainbow Gathering.
All
work, including all management of the work of others, is done by
volunteers. Even the gathering council, which makes (a very few)
important decisions affecting the whole gathering, does not generally
appoint or establish roles at gatherings. There is no centralized
management of any of the major operations that keep the gathering
functioning. All tasks are handled by individual (self-selected)
volunteers or small groups of such volunteers. These smaller
groups
organize themselves using the same consensus-based decision-making
mechanism as the gathering council.
There is no organization behind Rainbow Gatherings, nor an infrastructure.
The system of individual cooperation is sufficient to make it all work.
After the gathering is over there is no remaining social or legal entity
until the following annual gathering. The closest thing to a
permanent
entity associated with gatherings it probably this usenet newsgroup
(A.G.R.) on which you are reading this message.
There is unanimous resistance to any attempt to organize the gathering
by
defining official roles, especially roles of representation or leadership,
as these would usurp the principle of individual equality, freedom
and
autonomy that is the organizational basis of the gathering. There
is also
resistance to defining any organization that would represent the
gathering, as this would also violate the most fundamental principles
of
the gathering.
There is no payment or official reward system for work done at the Rainbow
Gathering. The main incentive for volunteers is the personal
satisfaction
of assisting others at the gathering. In addition there is no
funding
apart from donations collected during the gathering, and all of the
funds
are spent by the end of the gathering.
There is no official belief system or political ideology (apart from
populism) common to participants at the Rainbow Gathering. The
official
purpose of the gathering is simply to pray for peace, but even that
motive
is optional. Atheists, for example, are completely welcome at
the
gathering. The range of political viewpoints range from radical
leftist
to extreme right wing. The only viewpoints which are likely to
receive
criticism at the Rainbow Gathering are authoritarian or racist viewpoints,
since these contradict the inclusiveness and openness implied by the
populist basis of the gathering. Such unpopular viewpoints, however,
do
not preclude participation. Such people are still accepted as
full
participants, or at least tolerated, at the Rainbow Gathering.
There are no rules of conduct for participation in the Rainbow Gathering.
There are several suggested safety and practical guidelines (e.g.
sanitation guidelines), but they only address the logistics of a large
group camping in the woods, and are only the minimum guidelines necessary
to make the gathering safe for all participants. Most of the
guidelines
are not written down but are passed on by word of mouth. A few
of the key
guidelines ("Rap 107") are agreed upon and written down by consensus
of
the gathering council. Even these guidelines are not officially
enforced
but are either voluntarily followed, or enforced by pressure from other
individuals. There is no official mechanism or policy of enforcement
if
individuals refuse to comply with the guidelines. This is not
viewed as a
problem but as an acceptable risk since individual freedom is the key
feature of the gathering. Each participant is autonomous and
responsible
for controlling their own behavior. (This freedom is prized for
its
entertainment value as well for its ideological appeal.)
There are likewise no guidelines or rules, or official security team,
addressing dangerous or unlawful misconduct, nor is there is any official
mechanism or policy for excluding anyone from a gathering for such
misconduct. Once again it is the responsibility of individuals
to behave
responsibly, and to protect themselves and others from people engaged
in
harmful misconduct, short of engaging in vigilante actions. Law
enforcement officers (of which there is no shortage at the gathering)
are
called upon as a last resort, when unlawful behavior places others
in
immediate danger or when a crime victim chooses to press charges.
In
response to dangerous misconduct participants often react swiftly and
decisively, often en-mass, to protect themselves and each other.
Even
though this protective response is voluntary and sometimes dangerous,
it
is strongly motivated by the satisfaction of assisting others, and
it
contrasts sharply with the fear and apathy toward crime that prevails
in
urban areas. In spite of the willingness to risk themselves in
the
defense of others, very few gathering participants are armed.
Arming
themselves would violate the nature of the peace gathering, and
voluntarily disarming is also considered an acceptable risk.
Although the Rainbow Gathering occurs on July 4th, a US national holiday,
the event is not national, or nationalistic. It is officially
a "North
American" annual "gathering of tribes," indicating international scope
and
a rejection of the nationalism that accompanies authoritarian governments
of both the classical left and right political wings.
Rainbow Gatherings are occasionally criticized by liberals/leftists
who
wish to see the activist energy of the gathering turned to political
ends,
and from conservatives/rightists who see the populist theme being
dominated by various leftist agenda. The ideological unity of
the
gathering comes only from the populist ideals of individual freedom,
autonomy and equality. These ideals appeal to participants from
both ends
of the conventional political spectrum. In some respects the
populist,
individualistic appeal of the gathering outweighs the classical left-right
political alignments. The real political focus of gatherings
could be
described as populist, and the conflicts between the US government
and
the Rainbow Gathering could be interpreted as a conflict between populism
and pro-corporate big government.
In the current two-party political system of the US government, both
the
left and right use authoritarian big government to achieve their ends:
the
right uses national security or religion as the rationale for authoritarian
control, while the left uses social and environmental problems as its
rationale. Both parties are hopelessly corrupted by power and
money, and
both have allowed big government to undermine individual rights and
freedoms.
The gathering reflects a national populist trend of people reacting
against the overwhelming self-serving power of big government and
corporations which it serves. Those from the classical political
left
tend to focus their attack on the power of corporations and their impact
on the poor and the environment, while those on from the classic political
right tend to focus on the power of out-of-control, self-serving big
government. Now the poles of political ideology are authoritarian
v.
populist, and within the populist camp the classical left-right polarity
is redefined: the libertarian party representing the extreme
right; the
reformed party, conservatives; the green party, liberals; and the
anarchists representing the extreme left. Most others tend to
support the
two party system by default, in the hope that their candidate is the
lesser of two evils.
The populist appeal of the Rainbow Gathering could be the key to the
Rainbow Gathering's unity, as well as an indication that the gathering
is
anything but a non-political event. It is populism in its purist
form,
representing a rejecting of authoritarian government power. The
primary
significance of the gathering occurring in this era of the the dawn
of the
internet, is that for the first time in human history direct participatory
(i.e. pure) democracy may soon be possible. Rainbow Gatherings
may
provide some insights of how such a government could function, at least
on
a local level.