A Commentary on Tactics

There has been a bit of a debate here on the Blog about the tactics being used by social movements these past two weeks, namely road blockades and marches to shut down the Congress. Here’s a sample:

However, the marches only make those possible sympathizers react negatively to the entire movement. They no longer respond to the message of a fairer treatment for Bolivia, rather they only see the tactics as a threat to their daily way of life.

The reader also asked me what advice on tactics I have been giving social movement leaders.

First, let me say something about what it means to be a gringo in Bolivia. I live here. I raise my family here. It is not up to me, however, to tell social movements how to do their business. If I am asked for an opinion I offer it bit it is not my place to go around telling movement leaders how to wage their political struggles.

If I were leading a political fight here, would I organize people to block roads? Probably not. I don’t think it is all that brainy an idea for ACT-UP to try to shut down one of San Francisco’s major bridges from time to time either. I believe that the tactics of political confrontation should be used when non-confrontational tactics have been tried and failed and I think they should be aimed at those with authority, not the public at large.

Bolivians, however, live a different reality. Ask movement activists here why they have taken to blockading roads and they will tell you, “There is nothing else that will make the government listen to us.” Evidence is on their side.

All this reminds me of one of the most important expressions ever written about the tactics of civil disobedience, Martin Luther King’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail. In April 1963 King was jailed for participating in civil disobedience in Alabama. Other clergy on the outside criticized King for crossing an unwise tactical line. Scribbling on the margins of whatever scraps of paper he could find, King penned a response the wisdom of which endures four decades later:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.

To be clear, Bolivia isn’t Birmingham and the tactics being used here aren’t exactly those used by King. That said, there is a principle that is the same. People use the tactics available to them in the political contexts in which they operate. Nelson Mandela once said it isn’t we who select our tactics it is our opponents. People are in the streets here because they have been ignored politically, over and over again.

Do I wish movements here could find a less disruptive, less damaging way to press their demands? Yes. Do I see an obvious alternative? No. Is it my place to tell them what to do? Surely not.