2005-10-27,+How+to+start+and+grow+a+solidarity+movement

= How to start and grow a solidarity movement =

This paper is stimulated by a recent seminar of the Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum in Johannesburg, which proposed to hold a discussion in the near future about the lessons that can be learned from the experience of the Anti-Apartheid Movements and especially the original and biggest of these, the British one, of which several veterans were present at the seminar.

I will state what I see as the basic problems of solidarity movements with regard to South Africa’s three principle ones at the moment. These are with Zimbabwe, with Swaziland, and with Cuba. I will try to show how the British Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) overcame these problems in theory and in practice. Then I will recommend a way forward in terms of organisation.

Basic Problems
The solidarity movements need to have an intention that is clear. Its purpose is to consolidate public opinion and consequently political and diplomatic will, behind a certain point of view about a foreign country. It must do this while advocating peace and rejecting war, and without violating the principles of national independence and sovereignty upon which South Africa itself relies for its freedom. It must not allow itself to become the instrument of any other power. It must be anti-Imperialist.

A political movement can quickly gain broad support if it has a narrow aim that masses of people can understand and agree with. A movement that projects a complex and elaborate worldview is bound to receive less support and more opposition, which is fine. We are not trying to start a new religion.

The AAM made a false start with its original name, “The Boycott Movement”. People had to ask: “Who are you boycotting, and why?” Anti-Apartheid Movement was much better, especially combined with the A-A yin-yang logo, and the slogan “one person one vote in a unitary state”. The whole deal is clear in seconds. Its simplicity was so strong that an enormous elaboration of organisations was possible without corrupting or obscuring the AAM’s purpose (people did try to hi-jack it but never succeeded).

Let us frankly acknowledge that the moral clarity that the AAM was in a position to project was exceptional, and not available to us. The situation of Zimbabwe and Swaziland is much more relative. A conscious effort needs to be made to develop an approach and a slogan that will make the choice of supporting the movement a clear one. It is no use simply demonising because it can lead to contempt of other countries or xenophobia, which is the opposite of what we want.

The slogan should be: “Peace and the Rule of Law under Democracy”. This is what we stand for and this is the common denominator between all supporters of the movement. Our aim is neither “regime change” nor embargo and certainly not war or occupation. In any case these are tactics, not aims. Our aim is solidarity with those desiring what we have fought for: peace and the rule of law under democracy.

Structure
The AAM was organised in such a way as to sustain itself through the support of its members. It had no revenue grant. It had to raise money all the time locally and nationally, mostly by and from its members and from the public. Many of its members, or subscribers, were organisations such as trade union branches, religious congregations, political party branches, and other kinds of institution. All the British political parties had some kind of involvement.

The AAM’s structures were built to correspond to the layers of the other institution with which the AAM sought to ally. In the South Africa’s case the most profitable level to start with will be the city. A Johannesburg ZSF branch will correspond, for example with the SACP District, the ANC Region, and the COSATU Local, to name but three. It can immediately form bilateral realtions with these and other Johannesbueg bodies. Later there can be other levels of structure, growing organically in an unforced way. There needs to be an annual conference. There needs to be a democracy.

Without this kind of structure the ZSF, SSN and FOCUS will remain ad hoc in terms of support, and in fact will only be lobby groups, and always dependent on funding. They will not be able to mobilise the masses to change their own (public) opinion.

Dominic Tweedie, 20th October 2005. dominic.tweedie@gmail.com