How We Shut Down the WTO

It’s been months since  I joined the blockade that shut down the opening meeting of the WTO. Since getting out of jail, I’ve been reading the media coverage and trying to make sense out of the divergence between what I know happened and what has been reported. Most of what has been written is so inaccurate that I can’t decide if the reporters in question should be charged with conspiracy or simply incompetence.

The police, in defending their “mishandling” of the situation, have said they were “not prepared for the violence.” In reality, they were unprepared for the nonviolence and the numbers and commitment of the nonviolent activists—even though the blockade was organized in open, public meetings and there was nothing secret about our strategy. My suspicion is that our model of organization and decision making was so foreign to their picture of what constitutes leadership that they literally could not see what was going on in front of them.

When authoritarians think about leadership, the picture in their minds is of one person, usually a guy, or a small group standing up and telling other people what to do. Power is centralized and requires obedience. In contrast, our model of power was decentralized and leadership was invested in the group as a whole. People were empowered to make their own decisions and the centralized structures were for coordination, not control. As a result, we had great flexibility and resilience, and many people were inspired to acts of courage they could never have been ordered to do. Here are some of the key aspects of our model of organizing:

Training and Preparation: In the weeks and days before the blockade, thousands of people were given nonviolence training—a three-hour course that combined the history and philosophy of nonviolence with real life practice through role plays in staying calm in tense situations, using nonviolent tactics, responding to brutality, and making decisions together. Thousands also went through a second-level training in jail preparation, solidarity strategies and tactics, and legal aspects. As well, there was first aid training, training in blockade tactics, street theater, meeting facilitation, and other skills. While thousands took part in the blockade who had not attended any of these trainings, a nucleus of groups existed who were prepared to face police brutality and who could provide a core of resistance and strength. In jail, I saw many situations that played out just like the role plays. Activists were able to protect members of their group from being singled out or removed by using tactics introduced in training. The solidarity tactics became a real block to the functioning of the system.

Common Agreements: Each participant in the action was asked to agree to the nonviolence guidelines: To refrain from violence, physical or verbal; not to carry weapons; not to bring or use illegal drugs or alchohol; and not to destroy property. We were asked to agree only for the purpose of the November 30 action—not to sign on to any of these as a life philosophy, and the group acknowledged that there is much diversity of opinion around some of these guidelines.

Affinity Groups, Clusters, and Spokescouncils: The participants in the action were organized into affinity groups. Each group was empowered to make its own decisions around how it would participate in the blockade. There were groups doing street theater, others preparing to lock themselves to structures, groups with banners and giant puppets, others prepared to link arms and nonviolently block delegates. Within each group, there were generally some people prepared to risk arrest and others who would be their support people in jail, as well as a first aid person.

Affinity groups were organized into clusters. The area around the Convention Center was broken down into 13 sections, and affinity groups and clusters committed to holding particular sections. Some were in “flying groups” that moved to wherever they were most needed. All of this was coordinated at Spokescouncil meetings of representatives from the affinity groups.

This form of organization meant that groups could move and react with great flexibility during the blockade. If a call went out for more people at a certain location, an affinity group could assess the numbers holding the line where they were and choose whether or not to move. When faced with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and horses, groups and individuals could assess their own ability to withstand the brutality. As a result, blockade lines held in the face of incredible police violence. When one group of people was swept away by gas and clubs, another would move in to take their place. Yet there was also room for those of us in the middle-aged, bad lungs/bad backs affinity group to hold lines in areas that were relatively peaceful, to interact and dialogue with the delegates we turned back, and to support the labor march that brought tens of thousands through the area at midday. No centralized leader could have coordinated the scene in the midst of the chaos, and none was needed—the organic, autonomous organization proved far more powerful and effective. No authoritarian figure could have compelled people to hold a blockade line while being tear gassed—but empowered people free to make their own decisions chose to do that.