Direct Action and Democracy

Stellan Vinthagen

Reprinted from Peace News No 2435, May-August 1999

I would question whether resistance can be radical and covert at the same time.

I understand "direct action" to be a way of acting in which the means partly or completely fulfils the goal here and now. "Direct" means that the actors do not seek the sanction of political representatives, administrators in bureaucracies, managers of organisations or judicial institutions in their attempt to fulfil their goal. They reach the goal by their own decisions and co-operative efforts, whatever other concerned groups might think about it. If you do not want to have a road that presently is being built, you could go there and stop the actual building by obstruction or sabotage. If you want to have a sports hall in the community you take the equipment and start building it.

An indirect action would be to ask for permission from the authorities in power. But it would also be indirect to wait for a genuine democratic agreement among all concerned people. The problem with the concept is not so much that it disregards legitimate authority, but that it disregards large scale democratic process, which necessarily is indirect. Direct action, if at all democratic, is necessary local and small.

But I would propose that "direct action" could mean two different things. It could mean to act without the permission of the rulers or without the permission of anyone outside the acting group itself. In the first case it would serve as a tool of resistance against the state or power, and it still would be possible to have open contact and democratic dialogue with society. In the second case it would mean creating an opposition between "us" and "them", working in secrecy, acting without any sort of democratic legitimisation and facing the risk of sectarianism. Let us call these "open direct action" and "covert direct action".

There is obviously an unclear line between open and covert. All activists are covert about some aspects of what they are planning, doing, or who helps them. Even inside open groups such as ploughshares, there will be secrets about the identities of supporters or informers. Details of preparation will sometimes be kept secret in order to not help the police, or to protect bystanders and supporters. Even inside a covert movement like the Animal Liberation Front there will be an open spokesperson for the group (someone who definitely didn't take part in the action!).

Some movements have been strikingly open even if there seemed to be all kinds of reasons for being covert. I think for example of the trade union movement of the 19th century, or the South African ANC during its defiance campaign in the 50s, or the United Democratic Front during the 80s. We need research into how it was possible and why the choice was made to be (mainly) open during struggles where secrecy would be easier to understand. Covert direct action works primarily through creating economic pressure, but could also involve elements of political and institutional pressure. States and large corporations are the strongest economic powers you could imagine. As long as you do not undertake massive destruction, only small businesses and small-scale state projects will be affected. The consequences will necessarily be limited to reforms inside capitalism. Firms will listen, but not state-organised capitalism. So any group adopting a purely economic strategy faces the alternatives of adopting reformism or a full-scale war of mass destruction. Any group wanting to create democratic and basic social change should rule out both.

Covert action also makes in-or-out demarcations in terms of participation and dialogue. At the least it makes access difficult for anyone who would be interested. That clashes with the need to grow as a movement. Most covert groups adopt a semi-covert culture with half-hidden identities and activities. This leads to a false sense of security - and a lot of people who are not prepared for it end up with prison time and economic punishments. Which method of direct action can achieve radical democracy - not just in small like-minded groups - if not the open involvement of ordinary people, here and now, in decision making? Open action allows participation on all levels and dialogue with anyone interested. Some say that openness helps the police, but the state and the police are not the problem here. The problem is that revolutionaries who argue for secrecy can't be open with their fellow citizens because they are afraid that the police might arrest them. If you can't be open with your neighbour, how are you going to be able to co-operate in the struggle or make joint democratic decisions?

Stellan Vinthagen, Prisoner BT8233, HMP Preston, England