In praise of openness

Covert and overt nonviolent actions take many forms. Generally, covert activists don’t want to get caught whereas overt activists do — or even if they don’t actually want to be caught, they think that their public accountability and "capture" are politically beneficial. Some also think that open actions are also more ethically consistent.

When in prison in the early 1990s for disarming an F-111 nuclear-capable fighter-bomber, most of my fellow prisoners didn’t have too many problems with my law-breaking or property damaging, or even my anti-militarism and pacifism, but they did part existential company over "hanging around to get caught". A similar head-shaking and scratching has gone on in the anarchist and environmental direct action movements. In the latter, there’s been an emerging respect for open actions, especially in response to the Seeds of Hope ploughshares women, and an emerging acceptance of the validity of both covert and overt actions. It’s largely viewed as a debate about tactics.

However, I think it’s more fruitful to see it as a strategic debate: how does a campaign or movement go about achieving the change it desires, or safeguarding the state of affairs or ecology it values? And, wider still, how do we go about the radical overhaul — the nonviolent disarmament — of society’s institutions and culture that we know to be necessary if we are to glimpse anything approximating a peaceful, just and sustainable order?

Social change, like morality, must revolve around the predictable consequences of our actions and strategies. This is especially true on the subject of alienation and participation. Any action which alienates or limits participation must be keenly questioned — this is as true of ploughshares-type actions as it is of nonviolent covert property damage.

What are the main advantages of open actions?

• Usually, only those claiming responsibility endure the immediate legal repercussions — the authorities are much less likely to trawl around picking up other people.

• The potential for communication is enhanced — such actions are easier to talk about, and people find it easier to listen. There is a better chance that the actual issues — of injustice and justice, responsibility and inactivity — get talked about.

• There is the possibility that your opponents trust you — important if one of your goals is dialogue, and absolutely vital if dialogue is your method.

• It is easier to ensure and claim that the action is nonviolent: if you destroy property covertly and don’t inform the workers, you might be putting them at risk; the wider public often associate covert action with violence.

• Your support and potential activist base is generally widened — the diversity of supporters at the trial of the four Seeds of Hope ploughshares women was testimony partly to the respect across society for people openly taking the consequences of their actions.

• The symbolism of open actions is: "we are not above society, and we need your co-operation"; the symbolism of covert actions is: "we can do it by ourselves, we don’t need any help" — an elitist message.

• Democracy needs names and faces — it cannot function with anonymity. This is even more true for radical, participatory forms of democracy than for the anti- participatory, quasi-representative, pro-capitalist forms we currently labour under.

• You can use any consequent trial creatively; the trial becomes part of the action.

• You undermine the power of prison. Prison is far more for those outside than for those inside. By taking part in an action that carries the risk of prison, you have broken the power of the threat.

Open actions are more disobedient and undermining. The state expects you to be frightened of its powers, to not take responsibility for resistance. Running, or crawling, away thus becomes a form of obedience. Taking responsibility is extremely subversive.

I am not arguing that all nonviolent struggles must be totally open. It is very much a matter of political context and likely political consequence. But I do think that, in western anti-militarist and ecological struggles, open forms and strategies of action represent, by far, the best chance for widespread support, diverse and broad participation, and genuinely radical, sustainable social change or safeguarding of the ecosystem. Furthermore, I think mixing covert damage and overt action is not an effective use of our energies — the two forms of action enjoy very different dynamics. As Swedish ploughshares activist Per Herngren writes in Path of Resistance, "Eco-defence cannot be used together with civil disobedience, either theoretically or practically. It would obscure the open struggle that is built up over time."

"Sam Bombadill" responds:

Practical reasons for acting covertly extend beyond this: we cannot sustain large numbers of activists being imprisoned, in terms of our numbers or our energy. Consciously avoiding imprisonment of course means that we are not "free", but this choice has to be weighed against the opportunity offered by covert protest of repeating our resistance again and again.

This is largely a debate about ends and means. I believe that covert protest can share the vision of a more just and sustainable society while admitting the need to embrace a diverse strategy to achieve this. Stephen rightly points out that our actions take place in a political context; open action and acting out our vision is an effective part of our strategy for change, but covert action responds to the reality that the change which is needed will take place in the face of considerable resistance from those clinging to power.