Paths towards Consensus: Explaining Decision Making within the Swiss Global Justice Movement

Juego argues that the new Internationale’s “primary organizational function should be the global coordination of actions of progressive grassroots movements from country to country.” He calls for a ‘learning organization,’ where the new Internationale supports “a continuous dialogue between bottom-up and top-down approaches to decision-making.” He sees it as “[a]kin to a global coordinating council” meaning that it works to integrate and synthesize the “varying initiatives, campaigns, and mass actions at all geographical levels of membership” while remaining mindful of the “dialectics between reform and revolution.” The new Internationale must, moreover, be “grounded on a pragmatic understanding of realpolitik especially in struggles at national and local scales,” and institutionalize a commitment to dialogue, research, and discussion.

Download Full-text

Insiders, thresholders, and outsiders in west European global justice networks: network positions and modes of coordination

European Political Science Review ◽

10.1017/s1755773913000015 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 167-189 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Clare Saunders

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Social Movement ◽

Survey Data ◽

Political Institutions ◽

Global Justice ◽

Work Organizations ◽

Global Justice Movement ◽

Future Studies ◽

Formal Organizations ◽

Methodological Considerations

Since the new millennium, scholars have acclaimed a vigorous global justice movement (GJM). Many accounts have stressed the tolerant identities of those involved in this movement, and/or the movement's horizontal decision-making structure. Consequently, formal organizations are often excluded from analysis, precluding the chance to assess systematically whether they are involved in social movement modes of coordination. The article uses deductive block modelling and inferential statistics on survey data of a broad sample of 208 western European global justice organizations to uncover their modes of coordination. I find that many organizations commonly considered integral to the GJM demonstrate organizational and coalitional modes of coordination, while formal organizations often engage in coalitional work. Organizations most densely networked, including some formal organizations,dohave social movement modes of coordination: they identify with the GJM, display continuity in attendance at international protests/events, and have contentious relations with political institutions. In addition, I raise methodological considerations for future studies of social movement modes of coordination.

Download Full-text

Making The Polis: Social Forums and Democracy in The Global Justice Movement

Mobilization An International Quarterly ◽

10.17813/maiq.10.1.vg717358676hh1q6 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 73-94 ◽

Cited By ~ 74

Author(s):

Donatella Porta

Keyword(s):

Deliberative Democracy ◽

Global Justice ◽

Internal Communication ◽

Global Justice Movement ◽

Good Communication ◽

Organizational Demands ◽

Past Experiences ◽

Movement Organizations ◽

The Cost

The debate on deliberative democracy could open a fruitful perspective for research on social movement conceptions and practices of democracy. This article reports a pilot study of the values and norms that guide the global justice movement's organizational choices based upon focus groups and in-depth interviews with participants in various Italian social forums. Deliberative democracy, which emphasizes participation and the quality of communication, is particularly relevant for a multifaceted, heterogeneous movement that incorporates many social, generational, and ideological groups as well as movement organizations from different countries. The global justice movement—a "movement of movements" according to some activists—comprises a dense network of movement organizations, often the product of previous protest cycles. It builds upon past experiences of organizational institutionalization, but also upon reflexive criticisms of it. These networks of networks provide important resources, but also pose challenges for participation and internal communication. The activists in our study addressed these challenges by building an organizational culture that stressed diversity rather than homogeneity; subjectivity, rather than obedience to organizational demands; transparency, even at the cost of effectiveness; open confrontations oriented to consensus building over efficient decision making; and "ideological contamination" rather than dogmatism. Traditional participatory models of democracy are bridged with concerns for good communication and deliberation.

Download Full-text