Re-inspiring Movements, Re-imagining Organisations
By Samit Prabhat Aich
It is only recently I stumbled upon an article written by Arun Maira which he had originally written back in May 2019. The article titled “ The strengths and Failings of NGO’s” had some interesting perspectives — it had deep insights, although some nuances could do with an alternative viewpoint. First things first — I have a deep regard for Mr.Maira — not just as a stalwart in the business arena — including his long stint with the Tata’s, then with the Boston Consulting Group and also later with the Indian Planning Commission but now currently Board Chair of HelpAge International. Quite naturally, with such rich expertise across various sectors- private, government, non- government, allows him to get a bird’s eye view and to share his rich perspectives that enlighten the current discourse in a myriad of ways. Hence this article is not to critique the things his mentions but just add or accentuate different dimensions to some of those aspects. That he has chosen to speak about an organisation that I had been earlier intensely involved with for over a decade both nationally and globally — Greenpeace — allows me to take the liberty to amplify some of the issues he brings up. That also allows me to segue into the larger spectrum of the non- profit perspectives he talks about and to share my own experiences.
One particular line caught my attention in that article:
‘Citizens led upsurges to bring about change, but the gains are lost in sheer organizational dynamics.’
I will thus basically linger on what would seem as two broad, yet somewhat disparate aspects of the article: Movement Building and Organisational Strategies for Mission Impact. Let us prise upon these two strands and attempt to see if there deeper alternative perspectives — from organisations that have traditionally depended on citizen movements, to campaign for change. (Note that campaigning and advocacy are not the same as that article seems to allude. More of this later ).
The aspect of citizen’s upsurges demands a perspective that is multi-decadal, especially in the Indian context. In an era when social media was non- existent, the concept of citizen’s upsurges was very different. The time to build up a momentum of citizen’s movement was very intense on the ground with, that too through traditional modes of communication. Typically, movements were supported by people who were affected most on the ground and they did not hope for much support from the larger ‘general public’- although there were also individuals who got inspired to join these movements despite being not directly affected. How can one forget some of the most inspiring movements in modern Indian history? The Satyagraha for Indian Independence, the Chipko movement of the 1970s, the Narmada Bachao Andolan of the mid-1980s, the Lokpal agitation of 2011 and the Nirbhaya agitation of 2012 are just some exemplars of citizens uprising, pushing critical issues into the forefront of social change. The last two (though not the only two) were also examples where uprising on the ground was also fuelled by the massive use of social media that led to the issue stab at the collective consciousness of a digitally connected citizenry, even pushing governments to enact new Acts in the Parliament.
However, one very important aspect of all these movements was the adherence to principles of non -violent protests coupled with intense citizen participation that seemed to be driven largely by self-motivation. That too, without any formal organisational structures, absence of bureaucracy, informal processes and often with even no formal funding sources. But each of these movements had inspiring leaders-Gandhi, Sundarlal Bahuguna, Medha Patkar, Anna Hazare and others who stirred the collective underpinnings for larger positive social change. So there seemed to be an inadvertent template — an inspiring leader, a large engaged follower base and most importantly, a segment of citizenry directly affected- usually negatively, by decisions made by those who wielded power and hence leading to large scale disenchantment. All fired up by inspiring leadership, usually, an individual — and coincidentally all very somewhat frail physiologically but with solid mental determination, leading with zing and chutzpah that galvanised the millions.
There were movements of another kind, globally. Movements which led to spontaneous uprisings and mostly violence. Many of them were again, large scale, hit at the heart of the beast — so to say- and sometimes yielded results — including oppressive regime changes. Much of the Arab Spring which sparked from Tunisia and then spread into other neighbouring counties — like Iraq, Syria, Egypt were citizen’s uprising — peppered with violence, arson and civilian strife. All of this citizenry clamoured for freedom from stifling regimes, corruption and trampling of democratic processes. In fact, many of these movements were also actively supported by the western global powers, which intervened and supported to make these regime changes successful. As I write this article, one sees many hotspots of citizens uprising in many parts of the world- Chile, Venezuela, Hong Kong, Malta, Iraq, Iran and other parts of the globe. Almost all of these were and are violent uprisings and usually, bloody. And more the movement lingered, more the chances of being exceedingly violent- Syria and Hong Kong are just two examples.
But another kind of movement also existed; those that are/were large scale yet are leaderless- or at least apparently leaderless. Can one pinpoint who led the Occupy Movement (incidentally inspired by the Arab Spring) or who is the leader of the Hong Kong protests? These appear spontaneously, without any singular apparent leadership but usually triggered by a tectonic event — the financial crisis of 2011 leading to Occupy or the extradition attempt of a Hong Kong journalist to mainland China by the Carrie Lam led Hong Kong government. Leaderless movements are intriguing phenomena having a predictable storyline- an oppressive regime, a scalding event that triggers a large uprising, leading to an outpouring avalanche. Handling this is crucial — with gravitas, maturity, sensitively, with the people accountable for handling be empowered to deal with the crisis.
Yet another kind of movement building also exists, strategically designed in a somewhat methodical fashion. These are inspired by global organisations like Greenpeace and several others. These movements started with few concerned individuals coming together with a common fire and zeal, with a vision for a larger good. They had mission clarity, built cutting edge campaigns along the way- infused liberally with impactful storytelling, thereby stirring up collective consciousness.
Much of this kind of citizen’s participation had a snowball effect — essentially people took notice, felt inspired and supported these kinds of organisations — both financially and morally. A very large base of such public support gave legitimacy to these organisations, allowing them to be powerful defenders for the missions they espoused. And therein comes the critical difference between campaigning and advocacy. Campaigning is a means to get a significant shift in a social issue status quo, by challenging key power levers. But this is only with the engaging support of people — very vocal support, high decibel support and the ultimate win is finally a ‘ peoples win.’ In contrast, with advocacy, sometimes one can still get desired similar final outcomes but not necessarily with the fulcrum of public support — this can happen by networking, arbitrating, lobbying and negotiating behind closed doors. Nothing wrong with either approach, just a strategic choice an organisation makes to push for societal change.
One major drift that is being seen in the way movements or uprisings have evolved in the past one decade across the world, is the aspect of spontaneity. These seem un-orchestrated, organically fuelled by deep resentments with no real spearhead. This is in somewhat contrast to the likes of Greenpeace, that has practiced for over decades, traditional ways of campaigning with pre-packed, shrink-wrapped strategies and tactics. Perhaps the time has come to completely re-invent their campaigning style-to make themselves all the more relevant, especially in the currently increasing global drift in brand de-legitimization. Is it any wonder that the Extinction Rebellion (XR) executed a Greenpeace type action in its own offices in London a year back, asking it to ‘up the game’? What irony, that it takes another to wake up one of its own kind — in a way that talks its own language and asks it to smell the coffee!
This nicely segues into the second (and last) point of this article. The issue of organisational strategies for these somewhat slumbering giants and ways to rev up their campaigning engines — by inspiring yet again, inviting more citizens to join their fold. Mr. Maira mentions about the internal bureaucracies that have developed within these iconic organisations. The need for refreshed Vision and Mission clarity, renewed zeal and revitalised strategies at the very top echelons is an absolute imperative. This in turns demands visionary Boards who understand and practice healthy governance, high calibre senior management teams who design and implement cutting edge strategies and committed campaigners, who know their stuff. Else these same organisations face an existential crisis, with governments across the world snatching away their legitimacy, clamping down sharply as is happening at this very moment in many several parts of the world. At these moments of such global environmental and human rights challenges, these inspiring icons need to refresh their mojo, be the torchbearers and beacons that they always were, and once again and work on power shifts — for a greater societal good. All this, all the time by being true to the values they always stood for — equity, non-violence, truth and fierce independence.
This is indeed the time for these exemplary organisations to again think clearly, strategically revalidating their vision, mission and getting their act together. One false misstep is a one way street to oblivion and rapidly fading inspiration — it then becomes a struggle for self -survival. Unfortunately, the stark truth is, there does exist incompetent organisational governance, toxic internal dynamics, lack of top-level strategic talent coupled with an array of self-inflicted goals, nicely paving the way for an existential crisis. For every space that is vacated by these traditional exemplars, this gets replaced with more relevant, more inspirational and more impactful newer movements.
Is it thus any surprising, that citizens across the world are now inspired and fired up by a 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who started a massive global movement, bunking her classes to fight for climate change? No.
However, what is though a little distressing is that few of these once epochal institutions have now feel it comfortable to hide behind this teenager’s enthralling work and cover-up for their own fading identity and lack of refreshed originality.
Aren’t these moments in time when Charles Robert Darwin is yet again, proven spectacularly right?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Samit Prabhat Aich is currently the CEO of S3IDF and the former Executive Director of Greenpeace India. The views expressed in this article are those personally of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the organizations he has been associated with — both past and present.
