In a privatised world where public space is increasingly being squeezed out by the corporate/state sector (the continuation of the "enclosure of the commons")[1] can people still draw the line and say "NO MORE"?
What I call the 'battle for Federation Square' (March 2005) was mostly fought by a few dedicated people who decided to say "NO" when they were told to 'move on' by the corporate quongo.(quasi-autonomous non governmental organisation) But since then, the 'battlers' have claimed victory and now declare Fed Sqr to be open public space to be used for the free expression of the political, cultural and artistic vision of "the people" without fear of quango intervention.
"Federation Square was governed by the same regulations that govern a school - we�d been asked to move on and we had to comply." [Federation Square 'protesters']
Federation Square provides a central and unifying square for Melbourne, a place to gather and meet in TIMES OF FUN AND IN TIMES OF PROTEST. It operates around the clock with security and cleaning staff present 24 hours, meaning it is a safe and welcoming place at all hours. http://www.pps.org/gps/one?public_place_id=532
====
The description of Fed Sqr as a place for 'times of fun or times of protest' typifies the postmodern worldview of segragation of politics from life. 'Protest' and 'fun' are both relegated to the commodified activities of 'events' to be attended within civil society. People have 'fun' at the BMW Edge. (The BMW Edge is NOT political). Politics is not fun, but something dead boring to be done by experts and then marketed to consumers. A 'protest' is quite acceptable providing it keeps within the polite parameters of civil society (as an adjunct to parliamentary 'politics' and the market).
But what happens if some of the masses think politics is something else entirely? Perhaps they don't believe 'democracy' can be put into a neat little box and regulated by officials? Perhaps they might even think politics has some relationship to everyday life, history, culture or other quaint notions like liberty, equality, justice & etc. Regardless of the contribution such "masses" may make to society (culturally, politically, or otherwise) they will probably be confronted by a QUANGO (or some other bureacratic organisation) and told to "move on".
It is the clash of these two fundamantally different views of politics (authoritarian/anti-authoritarian) which was at the heart of the 'battle' for Fed Square. The 'clash' is as old as the two traditions themselves which in their modern form are little more than 200 years old. Over that brief span, the State or the Party has always lagged behind new forms of political/ cultural expressions of "the people" and has always sought to deaden/capture it.[2] It is forever the source of frustration to bureacrats that certain types of popular politics/culture can't be co-opted into the corporate box or the stinking halls of parliament.
This is particularly true with movements such as direct democracy & autonomy movements. Unlike many 'radical' parties, NGOs, lobby groups, etc, direct democracy/autonomy movements can't easily be bought off or co-opted into the state machinery because their conception of 'politics' is qualitatively different - freedom is not something that can be given by others, it cannot be bought, sold, bombed or coerced. It is something which individuals have to fight for. Even if the idea of direct democracy is taken up by a government e.g - in the form of Citizen Initiated Referendum, people will continue to organise from the ground up and battle for direct democracy/ autonomy at the local/regional level. This is where the 'not negotiable' line is drawn.
Direct democracy movements (may) include direct action and (may) go beyond political democracy to include ideas of economic and ecological democracy. These 'new' types of politics are in some respects a rennaissance of a more classical conception of politics - a form of political movement toward a self-managed, 'rulerless' society. This can only be achieved through fighting against the structures and the tendencies of rulership - even against our own tendency to want to rule others. Whether it takes the form of planned 'projects', loose confederations or smaller affinity groups - it is a direct slap in the face to the authoritarian 'power' politics of representaive 'democracy'. Although such a conception of politics may today seem insignificant in the current political scheme, it does at the least make a clear statement of opposition to the current order - something which no 'opposition' party is able to do.
With the tool of anarchist analysis more people are today understanding the problem of the centralising of political, economic and social powers with all of the negative environmental and social outcomes. Increasing numbers of people understand that traditional party politics, being inextricably entangled with this 'system', have no solution but are in fact part of the problem.
The answer today, like in times past, can only come from outside - from the political self-activity of the "people" in all their numerous shades of cultural expressions, tastes and interests. Such 'politics' goes beyond the realm of bland representation into the realm of self-institution and participation. At the least it may lead to reform or, in its most potent expression, social revolution. Of course direct democracy is not a magical solution to the worlds problems - merely one tool for organising. It is only as effective as the level of participation - once participation drops off democracy will return to its 'dead'[3] form. Combined with direct action, direct democracy presents a vision of a freer, fairer and more open society - an egalitarian vision not completely alien to the Aussie 'battler'. How we extend that vision is up to us.
[1] In the fifteenth century, the enclosure movement began to put fences around public grazing lands so that they might be privately owned and exploited. Today, every molecule on the planet is up for grabs. In a bid to own it all, corporations are patenting animals, plants, even your DNA. [Vandana Shiva]
[2] Political power always strives for uniformity. In its stupid desire to order and control all social events according to a definite principle, it is always eager to reduce all human activity to a single pattern. Thereby it comes into irreconcilable opposition with the creative forces of all higher culture, which is ever on the lookout for new forms and new organisations and consequently as definitely dependent on variety and universality in human undertakings as is political power on fixed forms and patterns. ~ Rudolph Rocker; Nationalism & Culture
[3] There is something puppetlike in the nature of every power, arising from its own illusions, which coerces everything coming into contact with it into fixed form. And all these forms continue to live in tradition even after the last spark of life has died in them, and lie like an incubus on the spirit which submits to their influence. -Rocker; ibid
[4] WHO ARE THE 'ENLARGERS'? Annual Manning Clark Lecture: Social Disengagement: A Breeding Ground for Fundamentalism. Delivered by Hugh Mackay at the National Library of Australia, Canberra - March2005 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigidea/stories/s1323906.htm