The Long, Hot and Frustrating Summer in Tasmania Affinity Groups My friend Robert Burrowes has been canvassing an idea about setting up an affinity group to work on a specific issue, which is as yet undefined. The idea of the affinity group would be to gather together a small group of people say ten-fifteen, who have a deep commitment to the principles of nonviolent action and who work together as a close knit community. The group would be responsible for selecting and planning a campaign, outlining the goals, aims and strategy of the campaign and finally organising various nonviolent direct actions that expose the issue and deal with the conflict of values that arise in these issues. I must admit that when I heard about this idea, I was more than a little skeptical. The idea of establishing small groups and closing them off, held connotations of elitism for me. After three years of full-time activism and involvement in heaps of groups of various sizes, I came to the conclusion that some groups were difficult to work with, but I wasn't convinced that the affinity style group was right for me. This uncertainty became a thing of the past after I spent a week with The Wilderness Society (TWS), in Tasmania, as part of the nonviolent training team, for their Long Hot Summer Campaign. My initial involvement in the campaign was to be facilitator of nonviolent action workshops that were compulsory for those who wanted to be involved in forest-based actions. However, I became involved in other aspects of the campaign, such as liaison, facilitation of large group meetings and lots of maintenance activities. In hindsight I think I should have continued with my plan to go bush walking at the beautiful Cradle Mountain. But I didn't, and on a positive note, I feel as though I have learnt a great deal about the internal dynamics of one of Australia's main environment groups and the successful and not so successful processes that they have used thus far in their Long Hot Summer Campaign. I make no apology for any criticism, because I see it as essential to feedback my hopefully objective viewpoint to the group. TWS's Aims According to page 13 of the Long Hot Summer Campaign handbook, the major aims of TWS's national forest campaign is to protect all native forests and their biological diversity and to see the end to native forest logging by 1995. Their objectives are twofold, to appeal to governments for decisions to establish protected areas on public land and conservation management regimes on private land. They are also looking for market decisions to suppress demand for wood and wood products derived from native forests. The aims for The Long Hot Summer Campaign was to make progress towards their national aims, by using nonviolent direct action and to train and educate activists who wanted to be involved in this particular part of the campaign. Power Elites So the question is, did they make any progress towards these short term goals? I must reiterate that I was only with the campaign for one week, which was incidentally the first week and I believe that some of the problems encountered were of a "teething" nature. However, the remainder of the problems stemmed from an entrenched set of societal values, operating within TWS, such as power elites and lack of trust, that I believe the social change movement experiences time and time again. From the very beginning, organisers maintained that there was to be a firm and unrelenting commitment to nonviolence as their means of social change. In the handbook distributed to all newly arrived activists, there were at least a dozen references to this commitment. And yet at least four of the six main organisers appeared to have little or no knowledge, respect or experience with nonviolent action. The question that kept popping into my mind was, "How can these people, who ultimately held a lot of the decision making power, hope to instil nonviolence as a philosophy in these new activists?" This question caused me great angst and frustration, because every day I was witnessing disempowerment creeping into the meetings and informal conversations. One activist from the mainland, remarked that he felt that he had very little power within the group, he felt more like a "recruit" who had been brought in to make up the "troop". I firmly believe that experienced activists need to realise that if we are to be part of a truly revolutionary society, then we need to trust that new activists will eventually have the skills to take on the more difficult organisational tasks that come with organising creative and disciplined nonviolent actions. The new activists do not gather these skills painting banners, writing messages in chalk on footpaths, or by being told what to do by people who were not even in Tasmania. There seemed to be this power triangle operating from Sydney and Melbourne, which I found personally frustrating. Every time the group in Hobart, usually after an exhausting meeting, reached a decision, it would be relayed to Sydney and Melbourne for consultation with people who held a lot of power and who I felt, had little understanding and respect for the principles of nonviolent action. Their feedback would come back to the group in Tasmania, with a qualifying statement, "it is important that we listen to these comments because these people have loads of experience and knowledge." I continued to think that sixty brains and sets of ideas were a whole lot better than two or three. The process that was used hardly allowed the group, as a whole, to own the action, which I believe is essential if there is to be group cohesion and trust built. The power of information and experience would always eventually succeed and I feel strategically poor decisions and plans were thus made. I came to the conclusion that it is very hard to empower willing young activists to act and gather the necessary skills, when there are a handful of people who ultimately refuse to hand over the power and TRUST that decisions and plans of action will succeed, just because they are not made by those four or five people. I honestly couldn't see the point of this process, it frustrated the new activists, it put pressure on the organising group in Tasmania and it caused great stress and tension within the group. But I have to add here, that this was a tremendous learning experience for me, because it allowed me to analyse how much power I hold onto and how much trust I have in those that I work with on a regular basis. But that's another article for my journal. Group Process As the primary facilitator for six days of the first week and a half of the Tasmanian-based campaign, I struggled with the group process skills of many. Poor group process was quite evident, there were perhaps three or four people who had an honest commitment and understanding of using consensus as a decision making tool. And anyone who has had any experience with consensus knows that it is not the short-cut approach. In my facilitation I was continually pushing using thorough consensus, posing such questions as "what do the group think of that proposal?", "is anyone unhappy with that proposal?" and "do the group feel like we need to discuss this proposal or objections more?" This mode of facilitation, which is far more inclusive and empowering for the group as a whole, was continually met with frustrated glances and sighs, by those that wanted to "fast-track" the decision and get on with whatever was the next step. In turn I felt frustrated and pressured to "hurry up" the process. And this put me in a compromising position and I must admit I was pretty confused by it all. Because I had never been a part of TWS and had no real understanding of how they ran their meetings, I was at a considerable disadvantage. It wasn't until I discussed my confusion with someone, that I began to really understand the dynamic. By the end of my time in Hobart, I was labelled a "process junkie", which I certainly don't mind, because it made me realise that I must have been doing something right. Principles of N.V.A. There were times when those principles of nonviolent direct action, that were so carefully explained in our nonviolent action workshops were clearly not given any consideration at all. At one stage during planning for a forest-based action, the issue of police liaison surfaced. The proposal was put that we simply tell the police that the group intended to be in a particular area on a particular day and when the time drew closer to the action, then they would be given more precise details. This sat very uncomfortably with me, for a few reasons. There are reasons why nonviolent actions should not be secretive. Secrecy is rooted in fear and contributes to the perpetuation of this emotion. Being open and honest about your action plans allows room for this fear to not be so evident. It also allows for greater levels of people involvement, and is more subversive, in that it builds trust between activists and police or opponents. Because of the continued dialogue, that is necessary in the liaison process, it allows activists to challenge police attitudes. This prompts the police to analyse their point of view, which can ultimately undermine their source of power. Historically there have been many examples of campaigns that have wholly renounced the use of secrecy. For example in 1972, Kooris openly maintained the Aboriginal Tent Embassy on the lawn opposite Parliament House in Canberra. And in 1983, all planning for actions that took place at Pine Gap were done in open group meetings, next to the base. Nevertheless, the group as a whole seemed very comfortable with the proposal. I realised that I had better go back to the drawing board and reconsider that part of the workshop and the way in which I teach it. Because I obviously didn't allow enough discussion on the issue of secrecy. Media and Strategy I held grave concerns about the amount of emphasis that was being placed on the mainstream media. And I'm not sure whether or not this is merely reflective of my own aversion to and mistrust in the mainstream media. There was a media collective set up, which ran incredibly well, but was also another example of an "elite force" in operation. Many, many hours and meetings were invested in priming the media, so that they would understand TWS's position and point of view. Whilst I understand that the media is an important part of the actions, I also understand that there are powerful vested interests that control the mainstream media. And I also understand that if those powerful, vested interests don't agree with your point of view, then they won't. No matter how much time and energy you put into them, those views won't necessarily change. So the question is, how much time and energy do you invest in this type of value conversion? The other point is that Hobart has quite a groundswell of support for green issues. I wasn't sure that this was being tapped into at all and neither were the various forms of alternative media that need to be supported, if they are to be a part of the new revolutionary vision. It was in fact this preoccupation with the media, that prompted the group to embark on a very poor strategic move. In 1992, TWS enshrined a policy of consultation with the Aboriginal community, that specifically stated that if there were to be forest-based actions then it MUST be in consultation with the Aboriginal community and permission must be sought from the Aboriginal community in the area. For months members of the Koori community in Tasmania had known that TWS was planning forest-based actions and yet they had not been consulted. This angered the Kooris and really had them questioning the purpose of the policy and TWS's commitment in recognising Aboriginal sovereignty of Australia. The Koori liaison was eventually done three days before a planned action in the North West of the state. The response from the Kooris was predictable, "We need time to discuss this issue with our community. We'll get back to you." This left the group in a fluster. They decided that they couldn't go into the Tarkine (the proposed forest venue) without the Kooris' permission. The dilemma they faced was, that the media was primed for some action that TWS had been promising for months. This was an opportunity that should not be missed. So they had to do something that would interest the media and yet not disclose the problem with the Aboriginal liaison, as well as keep up the momentum of the campaign - no easy task. The choice of action, which was a radical departure from forest-based actions, was a plan to stage a highly visual protest, which involved elaborate banner-hangs and information leaflets, that focussed on appealing to the Federal government to provide an Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of native logging in Tasmania. Whilst I do applaud the group's ability to be so adaptable and flexible in such a situation, I still hold really grave doubts about the logic and rationale of the decision that was made. I felt that this was an example of playing the media game, instead of giving the media what you want to give them, you allow the media to control your actions. Instead of having a long term vision and strategy, that is clear and consistent with your ends, there seemed to be a rather unfocussed and unclear strategy, that tended to be more reactionary. By prescribing to this second course of action, I felt that TWS reinforced the power of the media and in this case I believe they did that action for all the wrong reasons. This can be a terrific learning experience for those in TWS who construct the strategy. It was also an excellent lesson in understanding the importance of liaison with the Aboriginal people of this country. A point that is often ignored and undervalued by some pockets of the social change community. Reflecting on what I have written I worry that I have focussed too much on the problems encountered in Tasmania. I suppose that has been my intention. It has also been my hope that this article will open debate on the issue of having hierarchies in groups, that are supposed to be non-hierarchical. There were many good and fulfilling aspects of my time in Tasmania with TWS. Personally, I learnt so much about groups and the way in which they function. I participated in some invaluable networking. There are now at least three people who have gone home to their respective states to teach nonviolence and no doubt there would be many more who will be reading and thinking about nonviolence. And I also had the opportunity to communicate and work with a whole lot of new people, who have different processes and ideas. For me this is always an invaluable experience. On a final note, I do feel saddened that hierarchical structures are still so entrenched within a major environmental organisation. And I feel frustrated that as an activist with a highly principled philosophy of nonviolence, I found it so hard to break down that mindset of "doing things the usual way" that was so prevalent in the early stages of the TWS campaign. Affinity group here I come!!!!!! Bernadette McCartney