top of page
Search

2/2 Transformative forces - Trans-local solidarities

  • Benjamin-Alexandre Jeanroy
  • Apr 19, 2016
  • 13 min read

Already greatly pressured by modern globalization processes, the Westphalian system of sovereign nations upon which european centered modernity has been constructed is arguably rapidly eroding. This social contract upon which we have created and accepted synthetic frontiers that have made of people living outside of them, has greatly foster the concept of “otherness”. This however, does not mean that it will necessarily disappear. Only that it is losing all sense, whereas paradoxically some keep seeing it as the ultimate thing they can grip on in order to give sense to their socially constructed and increasingly empty realities.

Several other problematics remain intrinsically linked with the actors that hold the rein of drug policies. Among them - probably one of the most important component of modern drug policy - is the political acceptation that neither the demand for drugs, nor the substances themselves can be fully eliminated. This is crucial as the notion lies at the very core of the philosophy on which most of the world’s countries have based their drug control policies on. This moral judgement, so detached from any tangible reality, is so entrenched within our societies that even the most remote re-questioning of this premise is seen as a political failure, which causes great fear to anyone who needs vote to hold power. The idea behind this reaction, is undoubtedly linked with the view upon which elected decision makers see their electorate: uneducated, irresponsible, and bluntly lacking means of reflexion; a sort of wounded and afraid animal, for which you need to take decisions for. But it is not only the way people with power perceive the people they govern. It is also often the way we simply look upon each others.

Obviously, drugs, illicit or not, can be subject to abuse. And we mostly all partake in some sort of drug use, to different extents and levels. The fact that some people do not recognize this, is arguably connected to cultural perception of what a 'drug' is. But ultimately, we are all here now, and most of us are doing just fine. So why could we not consider other consumers to act as we personally do? What do we not see in others, that we can often indulge within (and absolve) oneself and one's community while refusing it to others? Although the answer can escape us, the simple fact of asking us this question is worth doing to ourselves.

However today, new circumstances create what John Tomlinson (1999) called “enforced proximity”, which in turn allow the cobbling of countries and push people closer to each other, into an “overlapping communities of fate.” (Held, 1995) As we have described in the precedent article, this involuntary sharing in a solidifying “world-risk society” (Beck, 2009), allow for a growing inter-consciousness. One that could help us One that could give core to this idea of global citizenship - or Cosmopolitanism -, notably by enhancing empathic capabilities. Cosmopolitanism is not a new concept, but nowadays “the growing gap between a de-territorialised social world and a territorially based political order” (Sanders, 2010) could open up the way to a new stage for this political philosophy and praxis. Indeed, as explained by the 2015 Global Peace Index (GPI, 2015), the global challenges currently faced by humanity “call for global solutions and these solutions require cooperation on a scale unprecedented in human history.” We would argue here that this cooperation can take the form of trans-local global solidarity civil networks.

Global civil networks are a mesh “that connect INGOs, social movements and grass roots organisations, as well as individuals on specific issues and campaigns.” (Kaldor, 2003) Here we specifically need to understand 'networks' as a “new social morphology” as described by Manuel Castells (1998), which are fluid, flexible and able to provide opportunities for grass roots voices to be amplified and heard. Transnational civil society networks are far from being harmonious, nor homogenous, but they do represent a claimed power space for interchange (and which can sometimes be disillusioning and acrimonious). Theorists of new social movements as Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani (2005), refer to it as “movement society.” A range of various networks and coalitions, of different scope and effectiveness exist.

Four years after the upbringing of new form of transnational solidarity movements such as Occupy Wall Streets (OWS) and the Greeks and Spanish Indignados, many lessons can be taken for those wishing to transform a given constructed social phenomena. They notably demonstrated “absolute necessity and practicality of having a global, as opposed to national or local, social movements.” (Campbell, 2015) Not only was OWS present in more than 82 countries, these movements were communicating and exchanging with so-called Arab Spring movements, as-well as with their European counterparts (1). Coming from immensely different environment, situations and local problematics, citizens all over the world connected with the “other” without considering it as such.

What has also be an important lesson - which was already rooted in back then - is the belief that if you put X number of millions of people in the street, because you live in a supposed democratic state - such as the E.U. and the U.S. - elected representatives have to listen to the proclaimed demands. Not necessarily to agree, but at least to listen, right? We know now that this idea could probably not be further from the truth. This is “the core insight of contemporary activism: elected representatives do not have to listen to street protests.” (Campbell, 2015)

As others, we would argue here that significant changes can be initiated by small strategic innovative interventions.This is not about seizing power, but rather to expose, delegitimatize and dismantle “mechanisms of rule while winning ever-larger spaces of autonomy from it.” (Graeber, 2002) It not so much about protest, but to create and enact newly formed horizontal networks which would challenge pre-existing top-down structures like the states, political parties or the U.N. These networks must be based on principles of horizontal inclusivity, decentralization and “non-hierarchical consensus democracy.” (Ibid.) But ultimately, these movements are much more than that since they intend to constantly evolve and reinvent ordinary life as a whole.

Additionally, these networks need to be subversive, as they can attract people within drug policy reproductive agencies - such as the U.N. or any other regional and national governmental structures - who would like to see their organization adopt a more creative and grounded approach to drug policy reform (such as the drafters of the leaked UNODC decriminalization paper, see Transform, 2015), and who may be in a position to influence policies on the issue if they have the outside support and relevant arguments and knowledge to hand. Indeed, often “delivering change is often less about scale that about a careful integration of creatively subversive elements into everyday activities.” (Fisher & Zimina, 2009) Moreover, obviously networks need members. But it is not the number or a certain critical mass that create the resilience necessary but the relationship that exists in between members of the network. In this regard, this “community of practice” (Fontan, 2012) is defined by several key dimensions:

  • a common enterprise, constantly renegotiated by all members;

  • a joint engagement that binds the individuals of the community together;

  • and a “shared repertoire of communal resources that members have developed over time.” (Fontan, 2012)

This community empirically learns from past mutual involvement and therefore acts in the future on the basis of this shared knowledge. These communities are adhocracies, meaning that a member who dedicate most of its time and resources on one action will invariably, steer the hive of the group in one direction, somehow functioning in between consensus and hive-like entities. It is only when this system becomes integrated to the group and can become a system of influence that individuals no longer surrender their freedom to political representativity. Similarly, within these networks, people are not limited to a single identity-participation process at a given time. To the contrary, their function needs to be understood as “multiple, overlapping and discontinuous.” (Conway, 2004) This post-structuralist conceptualization allow us to observe and understand these processes as intimately influenced by power relations, especially the hegemonic power of the national state, government, markets and traditional political forces.

The need for potential anonymity, close to the hacker ethic (2), is also crucial for certain members of the group, as once an individual agree to assume its identity in the public sphere, she or he has to leave the sphere of leaderless chaos to enter the Cartesian realm of traditional political methods, where she or he can easily be contained and discredited. The necessity to advocate for it, but also to be transparent in concomitance is ultimately necessary as it represents a threat to power structures and the very raison d'etre of the community. If the flow of information is to be open, transparent and inclusive, the norm is intrinsically threatening for systems which actively work behind the shadows. In this regard, even parts of online collectives such as Anonymous have taken upon themselves to call for drug policy reforms, directing their actions towards the U.N. drug control agencies, including UNODC (3).

To come back to our first thoughts we can also argue that one of the reason that we continue upon this prohibitionist road is that, for most of us - living in our comfortable and secure life - we do not perceive the costs of the current ICDR. These are mostly borne by 'others', obviously in majority in the Global South but also in multiple environments in the North. Populations of these settings have often little means for expressing the realities of their life. Or if they do, their voices do not reach the necessary critical mass audience which could theoretically make a difference. Corruption in Mexico, Afghanistan, Morocco, Myanmar and Laos is blatant and is clearly linked to the biggest illicit drug production sites. But who really cares? Of course, drug-related corruption is very much alive in the U.S. and in the E.U. but we mostly think it does not exist.

In this regard we, citizens, especially from the Global North, and not just people governing us, have successively outsourced the consequences of the drug control regime on other countries. And we sleep perfectly well on it. In the Global North, things are not necessarily easy for all and issues take another form. The power of the military-industrial complex, of the norms, of citizens apathy and of so-called social order are also not to be under-evaluated. But the main difference is that no one is going to shoot at us with real bullets if we go down in the street or take actions online and ask for accountability. In this regard we must face that one thing is not to know. Another is not to ask. And so is not to act when we finally do know. This is the reason why trans-local knowledge, solidarity and connection is crucial to better understand the problem at hand.

Trans-local coalitions are particularly necessary and pertinent in global thematics because they represent what Wolfgang Dietrich (2014, p. 152) calls “elicitive conflict transformation” tools, which do “not claim universal applicability as prescriptive methods do.” Elicit conflict transformation is defined by the Peace Analyst as a “self-sustaining reality of limited reach and duration", which “produces many small peace that daily need to be reaffirmed, understood, and reclaimed” (Ibid. p. 158) We must emphasize here that in these networks it is important that the 99% of the Global South do not become ostracized nor marginalized by the 99% of the Global North.

One of the most interesting example of trans-local coalitions can be found with the Myanmar Opium Farmer Forum, part of the Global Forum of Producers of Prohibited Plants, which in 2015 have published their third yearly common statement. Representatives of opium growers communities from the Myanmar States of Kayah, Shan, Kachin and Chin gathered to debate of the drug control policies that affect their lives and to make several recommendations. One of their stated call concern the diverse ‘taxes’ the farmers need to pay, whether to separatists armed militias, the state police, local representatives of governmental agencies, as well as to the central Myanmar army. Forced eradications are common when the villagers refuse to pay. They declare that none-standing UNODC and Myanmar affirmations “very few of us have benefitted from (alternative) development projects.” and that “the efficiency of the few programs that are operating could be much improved.” (Myanmar Opium Farmer Forum, 2015) In conclusion of their statement, the farmers affirmed that they “do not want to be regarded as criminals.” and demand “to be involved in decision making processes about drug policies and development programs that are affecting” their lives.

The inclusion and the recognition of the legitimacy of the local actor is necessary in the mutual construction of the local, national and global. In this regard, the Global Forum of Producers of Prohibited Plants (GFPPP, 2015) represent the regrouping “of small farmers (families) of controlled plants, from all geographical regions in the world, along with civil society organizations, academics and experts on drug policies and rural sustainable development”, and shows the necessity, and the possibility for like minded actors to unite despite the difference of their local settings. These more formal gathering are crucial in order to collect and rely upon local-experienced knowledges.

We would argue here that of people, living in such vulnerable conditions, and environment, are capable of uniting and directly assessing the need to reform drug policies in their country, many of us leaving comfortably in a non-war zone, can now only be aware of the far-but no less disastrous consequences that international drug control policies have on citizens of the world. It is one thing to protest, write and work towards drug policy reform, comfortably seated in the safe space of our modern societies. It is another to do so, when your life and those of your communities actually depend on the success of these reforms.

Clearly stated by Sanho Tree, “history is made by those who show up.” (Leisher & Tree, 2011) Arguably, the author of this thesis will not make a sensible difference only by writing these lines and publishing them. You will not either by only reading them. At the local level, our power can be tremendous, but it is at a global level, out there with others like-minded - such as during the upcoming UNGASS - that we need to question the way in which limited resources and leverage can actually produce a meaningful effect. Building effective and powerful coalitions can take several roads, but understanding how power relations work - without being limited by them - and what decisions and actions policy makers are influenced by, are an encouraging beginning. Historians will tell us that change is inevitable. Sometimes even for the better. That is a hope that anyone calling for change need to hang on tight to.

The poetic definition of civil society from Political Scientist Rob B. J. Walker (1994, p. 677) remains quite a propos in regard to our discussion: “They come and go, rise and decline, provoke a fuss and wither on the vine. They take the familiar path from charisma to regularised routine, from inventiveness and passion to bureaucracy, hierarchy and instrumental reason. Or alternatively, they fracture, mutate, dissipate, gather no moss. To be in motion is to be at odds with many of the criteria on which serious politics has come to be judged.” However, because governing uncertainty needs a plurality of voices to ensure efficient and legitimate policy, analyst must remain cautious on the difficulty to achieve such process, notably in relation to “institutional barriers, trade-offs/dilemmas concerning other democratic values resulting from increased participation, and the possible lack of ‘innocence’ of the involved voices.” (Cantelli & al., 2010)

On another point, analysis findings have shown that cultural settings, local institutions and historical backgrounds can greatly influence and shape the effectiveness of drug control policy. As understood, it is fundamental to integrate regional attitude disparities that form the drug control policy global horizon. In this regard, the theory of world risk society asserts that it is “by the traumatic experiences of the enforced community of global risks that threaten every-one´s existence”, that different people can unite. (Beck 2009) As often when faced with such challenges, much as people working on the issue of global warming, it is easy to feel daunted and discouraged. But we need to remember that people, ordinary people, are much more powerful than they know. Indeed, as noted by Justin Campbell (2015), in the face of modern challenges “only social movements with a global perspective can succeed.”

 

(1) Jeanroy B-A., « Construction of new forms of transnational solidarity within Indignados and Occupy Wall Street movements », M2 Thesis, Ecole Doctorale de Sciences Po., Paris, 2012.

(2) “The virtue of the hackers came from the very materiality of the so-called virtual world. [...] Understanding how works any of the devices that surround us, implies an increase in immediate power, giving us control over what appears to us no more as an environment, but as a world arranged in a certain way and that we can shape. This is the hacker perspective on the world.” (Comité Invisible, 2007)

(3) “For this reason we will occupy the upcoming UNODC Meeting, which will take place between March 12th to March 16th 2012 in Vienna, Austria.” Further adding that “this is no longer your world, this is our world, the peoples world.” (Anonymous, 2011)


Comments

 

UPEACE

  • Facebook - Black Circle
  • Twitter - Black Circle
  • LinkedIn - Black Circle
  • SoundCloud - Black Circle
bottom of page