HOW STUDENTS TOOK LEADERSHIP OF THE UMBRELLA MOVEMENT Marginalization of Prodemocracy Parties Ming Sing (original) (raw)
Related papers
MOVEMENTS IN PARTIES: OCCUPYPD
PArtecipazione e COnflitto, 2015
When the United States activists called for people to Occupy#everywhere, it is unlikely they were thinking of the headquarters of the Italian centre-left party. Parties and movements are often considered to be worlds apart. In reality, parties have been relevant players in movement politics, and movements have influenced parties, often through the double militancy of many of their members. OccupyPD testifies to a continuous fluidity at the movement-party border, but also to a blockage in the party's interactions with society that started long before the economic crisis but drastically accelerated with it. In this paper we present the OccupyPD Movement as a case of interaction between party politics and social movement politics, and in particular between the base membership of a centre-left party and the broader anti-austerity movement that diffused from the US to Europe adopting similar forms of actions and claims. Second, by locating it within the context of the economic and democratic crisis that erupted in 2007, we understand its emergence as a reaction towards politics in times of crisis of responsibility, by which we mean a drastic drop in the capacity of the government to respond to citizens' requests. To fulfil this double aim, we bridge social movement studies with research on party change, institutional trust and democratic theory, looking at some political effects of the economic crisis in terms of a specific form of legitimacy crisis, as well as citi-zens' responses to it, with a particular focus on the political meaning of recent anti-austerity protests. In this analysis, we refer to both quantitative and qualitative data from secondary literature and original in-depth interviews carried out with a sample of OccupyPD activists.
Conceptualising party-driven movements
British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2020
This article contributes to scholarship on the relationship between political parties and social movements by proposing the concept of 'party-driven movements' to understand the formation of a new hybrid model within existing political parties in majoritarian systems. In our two case studies-Momentum's relationship with the UK Labour Party and the Bernie Sanders-inspired 'Our Revolution' with the US Democratic Party-we highlight the conditions under which they emerge and their key characteristics. We analyse how party-driven movements express an ambivalence in terms of strategy (working inside and outside the party), political aims (aiming to transform the party and society) and organisation (in the desire to maintain autonomy while participating within party structures). Our analysis suggests that such party-driven movements provide a potential answer to political parties' alienation from civil society and may thus be a more enduring feature of Anglo-American majoritarian party systems than the current literature suggests.
Social movements and political parties: conflicts and balance 1
2009
The paper addresses aspects of the relationship between political parties and social movements, with a focus on the Australian Greens. It posits some of the limitations and possibilities of this relationship, arguing that it is a necessary one, both to social movements seeking to pursue their agendas through the political system, and to political parties needing to be open to broad public participation and to maintain strong links to on-the-ground issues. It concludes that the Australian Greens have sought to strike a balance between party and movement, recognising the limits of both.
Social movements and political parties Objectives strategies and relations
This essay is a reflection on some of the main social movements that have developed over the last two centuries, from the oldest, such as the workers' or nationalist movements, to the most recent ones, such as the environmentalist, anti-globalisation or anti-neoliberal movements. Its main objective is to investigate the objectives that have driven and continue to drive each of them, the main strategies they have used and, above all, the relations they have maintained and continue to maintain with political parties. Both are fundamental socio-political phenomena that have had a complex relationship throughout history, ranging from minority tendencies of rejection by social movements towards political parties, to majority tendencies to establish a more or less intense relationship. The type of relationship established between the two has been of fundamental importance in terms of strategy and the ability to achieve the proposed objectives.
China Perspectives, 2017
Social movements are voluntary events whose participants have the right to leave whenever they disagree with their leaders. For this reason, the legitimacy of social movements is often perceived as inherent and thus of only secondary importance. This article aims to repudiate this view by demonstrating that legitimacy issues can impose constraints and have significant impacts on the relationships and decisions of the leaders of social movements. In the case of the Umbrella Movement, bottom-up legitimacy challenges to movement leaders’ authority not only forced the leaders to reform their decision-making structure and even implement direct democracy, but also intensified the relationships among the leaders of different factions, ultimately undermining the leadership’s overall effectiveness.
2023
This chapter appears in Rutledge Handbook of Memory Activism, edited by Yifat Gutman and Jenny Wüstenberg. Rutledge 2023 When the leaders of the then outlawed Solidarity movement agreed to negotiate with the Polish United Workers’ Party in 1988, they did not know that in a space of less than a year they would have to become a political party themselves. More specifically, they did not know that they would have to run in an election, compete to win it and later participate in government. Similarly, when the imprisoned leaders of the African National Congress (ANC) were first invited to tea by the South African Republic’s President P.W. Botha in 1989, and later F. W. De Klerk, they did not know that in a space of four years they would be revitalizing their old party (as opposed to clandestine movement) structures, and running for and winning office. In both cases, the rulers of the communist and apartheid regimes knew more, but only just: they knew they had to negotiate and let the opposing Solidarity and ANC into power -- to gain popular legitimacy for painful economic reforms, and to end crippling economic sanctions, respectively -- and they had financial and organizational resources to act as political parties; what they did not know, or had much experience with, was seeking and gaining popular support at the polls. In each case, both sides in the negotiations operated in conditions of uncertainty, but they faced the unknown with unevenly distributed resources. As this chapter will show, the regime-contesting social movements managed their lack of knowledge, experience and resources by becoming memory activists and conjuring what I call mnemonic capital (Korycki 2019). In other words, they transformed themselves into institutional actors of democratic competition by engaging with memory activism (Gutman 2017, Wüstenberg 2018); but in the process of doing so, they changed the nature of that competition and the nature of that activism.