In today's New York Times, Tom Friedman has some excellent advice for the Occupy Wall Street movement -- and, by extension, anyone working to bring about social change.
In the column, Friedman compares the emerging grassroots protest movements in the world's two biggest democracies, India and the U.S., and finds much to admire. But he's quick to point out that the movement here, OWS, "has no leader and no consensus demand," while the India Against Corruption movement that has coalesced around Anna Hazare not only has both, it has millions of followers. And one of the reasons, says Friedman, is that IAC is very clear about its objectives.
To help make the point, Friedman quotes Arvind Kejriwal, Hazare's top deputy:
Gandhi said that whenever you do any protests, your demands should be very clear, and it should be very clear who is the authority who can fulfill that demand, so your protests should be directed at that authority.
If your movement lacks leadership at first, that is not necessarily a problem, Kejriwal continues,
because often leaders evolve. But the demands have to be very clear.... [E]xactly what needs to be done, which law needs to be changed and who are they demanding that from? These things have to be answered quickly....
OWS has brilliantly captured the anxiety and frustration with the status quo felt by millions of Americans. But without effective leadership and clear demands, the movement is in danger of running aground on the shoals of indifference -- or, worse, as the poet and novelist Ishmael Reed suggests in a Times' op-ed of his own, of being hijacked by elements with far less constructive agendas.
Which, if you agree, leaves one important question unanswered: Where is OWS' Gandhi or Dr. King?
-- Mitch Nauffts
