by José Tulio Gálvez Contreras, Ph.D. Student in Public and Urban Policy
In his scholarly commentary, López Gárcia asks the questions, “can the occupy movements [Occupy Wall Street in New York and 15M in Spain] be considered a transnational advocacy network? If so, how did it operate to influence policy-making processes?” I argue that both of these movements fit the mold of a transnational advocacy network. Here are my reasons.
Keck and Sikkink’s definition of a transnational advocacy network is, “network of activists, distinguishable largely by the centrality of principled ideas or values in motivating their formation.” Five months before American protesters stormed Wall Street in September 17, 2011, youth in Spain had mounted a similar campout in the Puerta del Sol in the center of Madrid. The movement known as the indignados movement or 15M (because the first protest took place on May 15), held its first demonstration under the motto "we are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers" and was focused on opposition to what the demonstrators called, "antisocial means in the hands of bankers." In New York, similarly, activists took over Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, protesting against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future. The movements formed a transnational advocacy network as they were inspired by the central premise that it is about time that the elite minority shares the wealth and power with the disenfranchised majority. Their conjoint effort was to blast all the channels and avenues they could to bring attention to their actions. The whole world was being made aware of the power of people-powered movements. These activists had specific targets that they wanted to communicate their message with: politicians and the wealthy class. Additionally, as network, activists understood that this effort could not be done alone and effectively managed online networks to encourage others to join. Occupy Wall Street and 15M were in constant communication, shared ideas, and reaffirmed the allegiance with each other.
Transnational advocacy networks are also known to be contributors to a convergence of social and cultural norms able to support process of regional and international integration. The integration of ideas and strategies by the occupy movements clearly display that they met this characteristic as a transnational advocacy network. These movements not only brought awareness to their own localities but also contributed to the ignition of similar actions around their countries and around world. Parallel to these two movements, manifestations spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally took rise. Moreover, both movements played a significant role in issue areas such as the inequality, livable wages, human rights, and environmental conditions. They also made international resources available to new actors in domestic political and social struggles. Some of the major actors of the occupy movements included members of civil society, international and domestic NGOs, research and advocacy groups, local social movements, foundations, the media, churches, trade unions, customer organizations, intellectuals, parts of regional and international intergovernmental organizations and members of government. All of these players are some integral actors to what is considered to be a transnational advocacy network.
Now, a little over five years after occupy movement's eviction from a small Manhattan park and Puerta del Sol in Madrid, the movement as transnational advocacy network has shined the spotlight on the 99% who claim to be affected by disenfranchisement. The movements have also spread seeds across the United States, Spain and around the world, for people to take action. As Todd Gitlin, a Columibia University Professor said, "What a movement that has any kind of success does -- not necessarily practical results but any kind of excitement -- is acquaint or reacquaint people with some of the pleasures of being involved in a social movement.” He then proceeds, “The way movements work is they sort of enlarge the circle of possibility." So in response to López Garcia’s second question, of how did it operate to influence policy-making processes? Well, there was strategy.
Some of the more kind of tactics that occupy movements as network used included information politics, symbolic politics, leverage politics, accountability politics, which are also key components of transnational advocacy networks. Some of the major accomplishments of their joint effort was their ability to move politically usable information quickly and credibly where it will have most impact. It was evident that the actions of politicians and the wealthy class has not favored the majority of the populations. Among the network there was strong discomfort with how the economic system has been working. This is why they also resourcefully were able to call upon symbols, actions, or stories that make sense of a situation or claim for an audience that was far away from them. Also, they called upon powerful actors to affect a situation where weaker members of a network are unlikely to have influence. They brought masses together. They understood that channels between domestic groups and their governments are hampered or severed where such channels are ineffective for resolving a conflict. And as López Garcia makes reference in his scholarly post, the movements created an infrastructure system that were readily translatable to other places around the world. They realize that networking will further their missions and campaigns, and actively promote them. So they collaborated on how they distributed support among the groups who were protesting. Their ultimate goal was the effort to oblige more powerful actors to act on vaguer policies or principles they formally endorsed through democracy.
In his scholarly commentary, López Gárcia asks the questions, “can the occupy movements [Occupy Wall Street in New York and 15M in Spain] be considered a transnational advocacy network? If so, how did it operate to influence policy-making processes?” I argue that both of these movements fit the mold of a transnational advocacy network. Here are my reasons.
Keck and Sikkink’s definition of a transnational advocacy network is, “network of activists, distinguishable largely by the centrality of principled ideas or values in motivating their formation.” Five months before American protesters stormed Wall Street in September 17, 2011, youth in Spain had mounted a similar campout in the Puerta del Sol in the center of Madrid. The movement known as the indignados movement or 15M (because the first protest took place on May 15), held its first demonstration under the motto "we are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers" and was focused on opposition to what the demonstrators called, "antisocial means in the hands of bankers." In New York, similarly, activists took over Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, protesting against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future. The movements formed a transnational advocacy network as they were inspired by the central premise that it is about time that the elite minority shares the wealth and power with the disenfranchised majority. Their conjoint effort was to blast all the channels and avenues they could to bring attention to their actions. The whole world was being made aware of the power of people-powered movements. These activists had specific targets that they wanted to communicate their message with: politicians and the wealthy class. Additionally, as network, activists understood that this effort could not be done alone and effectively managed online networks to encourage others to join. Occupy Wall Street and 15M were in constant communication, shared ideas, and reaffirmed the allegiance with each other.
Transnational advocacy networks are also known to be contributors to a convergence of social and cultural norms able to support process of regional and international integration. The integration of ideas and strategies by the occupy movements clearly display that they met this characteristic as a transnational advocacy network. These movements not only brought awareness to their own localities but also contributed to the ignition of similar actions around their countries and around world. Parallel to these two movements, manifestations spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally took rise. Moreover, both movements played a significant role in issue areas such as the inequality, livable wages, human rights, and environmental conditions. They also made international resources available to new actors in domestic political and social struggles. Some of the major actors of the occupy movements included members of civil society, international and domestic NGOs, research and advocacy groups, local social movements, foundations, the media, churches, trade unions, customer organizations, intellectuals, parts of regional and international intergovernmental organizations and members of government. All of these players are some integral actors to what is considered to be a transnational advocacy network.
Now, a little over five years after occupy movement's eviction from a small Manhattan park and Puerta del Sol in Madrid, the movement as transnational advocacy network has shined the spotlight on the 99% who claim to be affected by disenfranchisement. The movements have also spread seeds across the United States, Spain and around the world, for people to take action. As Todd Gitlin, a Columibia University Professor said, "What a movement that has any kind of success does -- not necessarily practical results but any kind of excitement -- is acquaint or reacquaint people with some of the pleasures of being involved in a social movement.” He then proceeds, “The way movements work is they sort of enlarge the circle of possibility." So in response to López Garcia’s second question, of how did it operate to influence policy-making processes? Well, there was strategy.
Some of the more kind of tactics that occupy movements as network used included information politics, symbolic politics, leverage politics, accountability politics, which are also key components of transnational advocacy networks. Some of the major accomplishments of their joint effort was their ability to move politically usable information quickly and credibly where it will have most impact. It was evident that the actions of politicians and the wealthy class has not favored the majority of the populations. Among the network there was strong discomfort with how the economic system has been working. This is why they also resourcefully were able to call upon symbols, actions, or stories that make sense of a situation or claim for an audience that was far away from them. Also, they called upon powerful actors to affect a situation where weaker members of a network are unlikely to have influence. They brought masses together. They understood that channels between domestic groups and their governments are hampered or severed where such channels are ineffective for resolving a conflict. And as López Garcia makes reference in his scholarly post, the movements created an infrastructure system that were readily translatable to other places around the world. They realize that networking will further their missions and campaigns, and actively promote them. So they collaborated on how they distributed support among the groups who were protesting. Their ultimate goal was the effort to oblige more powerful actors to act on vaguer policies or principles they formally endorsed through democracy.