Soul Bound

1        Soul Bound

1.3      Making a Splash

1.3.1    An Obligated Noble

1.3.1.18 Sharpe Lecture: Power (part two)

“What would lead you to abandon your ideals? To make you sit down, shut up and conform?”

Dr. Sharpe's words hung heavily in the silence for several long seconds, before he continued in a lighter tone.

“It is easy to tell yourself that you won’t accept a bribe from an enemy, but things become much harder when the issue is whether to accept a donation from a well intentioned ally who shares some but not all of your objectives. The main thing I want to talk about today is a phenomenon known as ‘Movement Capture’, how it relates to organisation structure and the choices about power that you’ll need to face if you ever end up leading a movement.”

Kafana spent the next twenty minutes becoming increasingly gloomy, as Sharpe gave example after example of new movements that started off with a handful of idealists with wide ranging agendas tackling everything related to a particular cause, from immediate dangers and unjust laws, to underlying inequalities and unaccountable social institutions. Each time the movement gained publicity, it attracted new members and wealthy donors who were keener on some parts of the agenda than others. Members spent their time on projects that looked promising, while the difficult uncomfortable parts of the agenda that challenged the status quo languished because status-sensitive donors were reluctant to be seen to be linked with it. Over time, the types of success the movement was known for and the types of new members attracted to it altered: the movement became less radical - its very agenda altered because the average views of its total membership had changed.

Finally, to her relief, he moved onto talking about solutions to the problem, bringing up a slide showing three images:

A woman in a pointed hat, using a sharp fingernailed hand to direct organised squadrons of flying monkeys.

The same woman in the pointed hat, now sitting at a typewriter trying to come up with a manifesto, while all around her, eating bananas and hanging from the ceiling, were a near infinite number of monkeys each writing a different manifesto on their own typewriter.

The woman in the pointed hat, holding a completed manifesto in one hand, while holding a large umbrella in the other. Lots of monkeys sheltered under the umbrella, moving mostly in the same direction as her, while others stayed outside it and did their own thing.

“Supposing you end up wearing the hat of leadership, in a rebellion against a great and powerful Wizard, the shamefully low wages paid to munchkins, and the monopolistic thuggery of lollipop manufacturers. Your first option to resist movement capture is the army model. You keep a tight hold upon the reins of power, placing yourself at the top of a hierarchy that gives you total control of what the aims are, how they are to be achieved, who works on which sub-project and how they’re funded, whether donations are accepted and that allows you to discipline or kick out any soldier who disobeys orders.”

“It can work quite well on a small local scale, but it faces a couple of challenges when the scale grows. The direct threat is members who want the organisation to ‘mature’, making seemingly reasonable requests such as allowing the members to select a supervisory board with the power to sack you as leader if you go mad, or you betray the organisation by trying to run off with all the money. That doesn’t sound bad, does it? But it can be the thin end of the wedge of de-radicalisation, if moderates elect a board who decide it would bring the organisation into disrepute were you to order your multicoloured equine agent to try to assassinate the Wizard by sabotaging his relative-dimensions-in-space-and-narrative-reality balloon device. Better, the board would say, to focus your efforts on handing out educational pamphlets to munchkins, and leave dealing with the bigger underlying problem to someone else better suited to it.”

He tapped the picture of the witch commanding the organised squads again.

“The other challenge with the first option is that some problems are too big or complex. Too big for one person to achieve in a single lifetime. Too big for them to understand all the aspects in enough detail to make good decisions. Too big for them to directly manage. Too big, even, for them to retain absolute control over the layers of middle managers who would be needed, tracking their progress and motivating them. Even people with a natural talent for management reach a point where they simply can’t do more than ride herd, while trying to weed out the most incompetent or disloyal subordinates.”

He tapped the second picture, where the witch was just one monkey among many, each doing their own thing.

“The second option is to stay small. Accept only those you trust absolutely, and focus on what can be achieved by the team you’ve put together. Don’t accumulate power, don’t set out to control what others try to do, how they try to do it, how they describe themselves or what they say in public. You may not get to see your biggest aims achieved, but you can make a start upon chipping away at the problems, and perhaps others will be inspired by your actions. The anarchist model is attractive to those who, above all else, desire to stay true to themselves and know for certain that they’re causing no harm - be part of the solution not part of the problem.”

“This option also faces a couple of challenges. Some strategies, such as boycotts and protest marches, are usually inefficient until the number participating reaches a threshold size. If a thousand activists turn up to two hundred different protests, held at different times and each with only five people present, it has less total impact than if they’d turned up at the same place and time. Two hundred manifestos, each with seemingly little support, are taken less seriously than a single manifesto that appears to be popular.”

He spoke with regret in his voice, and a distant look in his eye, which made Kafana suspect Dr. Sharpe was speaking from personal experience. What had he tried when younger, before he’d become a lecturer? She realised that she’d never asked him.

He tapped the picture of the anarchist winged monkeys again, and she noticed one had ink-stained fingers and heavy rimmed glasses, while another had a half-smoked joint tucked behind its ear. Each was an individual, unlike in the first picture.

“The larger challenge facing the second option is resisting deliberate sabotage. If you retain no control, you have no way to defend yourself against an opponent turning popular opinion against you using black propaganda, or even by anonymously inciting violent jerks to join your movement, then publicising the offensive, dangerous, ignorant or stupid statements and actions taken by the jerks in the name of your cause. Anarchists, however peaceful and benevolent, often end up lonely and shunned because none will trust them to keep agreements.”

He tapped the third picture, where the witch was carrying an umbrella.

“Luckily, the options are not limited to picking either total control or zero control. So let’s look at a third option, a compromise option where you try to maintain a balance between allowing your monkeys enough freedom that effective action gets taken, and retaining enough control that even the most radical parts of your agenda don’t get dropped or ignored.”

“A classic example of this is the alliance structure, where multiple independent groups subscribe as members in an umbrella organisation, that helps them coordinate and share resources with like minded groups and which, in return, will kick them out and ban them from claiming to be umbrella members if they don’t stick to the membership rules covering things like how to interact with fellow members and things not to do in the name of the alliance.”

“Some alliances are set up so that the objectives and staff members of the umbrella organisation are under the ultimate control of a democratic vote by the member groups, which faces the same movement capture problem as the army model faces. But, with a bit of forethought, there are defences that can be set up.”

He changed the slide, showing a shining wall surrounding the umbrella’s manifesto, accompanied by so much text that Kafana found it easier to use her phone to read the electronic version of the handout that Dr. Sharpe supplied for each lecture, to avoid students spending all their time writing.

The anti-movement-capture ‘How To’ kit for setting up an umbrella organisation.

Found the umbrella organisation using a clearly written manifesto or constitution, that member groups must declare they agree with and will defend, and don’t allow it to be altered without unanimous or near unanimous agreement, to make it harder to subvert.

Design the process used to recruit or select the staff and leaders of the umbrella organisation, to favour long term members with a proven track record of effective work on projects covering the full range of objectives listed in the manifesto.

Set up the induction process for new members to educate them on how the different points in the agenda relate to each other and why they are all important; have members work on a variety of projects, so they understand them well enough to advocate for them rather than sweep them under the carpet with an embarrassed shrug.

Avoid becoming dependent upon funding and external support tied to particular projects or upon the avoidance of upsetting the status quo. Retain the ability to channel membership fees and internal funds towards the harder projects, and to recruit help for them.

Structure the umbrella organisation so that ultimate control over external deals, strategic decisions, branding, membership and how the manifesto gets interpreted stays in the hands of the most trusted people - a group small enough to sit at one table and hold efficient discussions. Ideally no more than seven people, though you don’t have to stick to an odd number if the leader has additional powers, such as an extra vote when breaking ties.

“In short, retain control over the objectives and which strategies to achieve those objectives you won’t condone. Be flexible about the rest, and plan to delegate and decentralise as much as possible, once the movement grows and has built up momentum moving in the direction you desire.”

He left the podium and started pacing, talking now as though in a conversation rather than from a prepared script.

“Why do I say give up as much power as possible? Don’t charismatic founders of movements often remain in total personal control of the central organisation, even when they do use an umbrella structure? Isn’t that a workable compromise?”

“Many leaders of organisations, whether political activists or not, feel tempted to delay diluting their personal power. Either because they enjoy having power over others and consider the ability to also use that power for their personal benefit as a perk of the position, or from fear of surrendering something they might need later to defend the organisation or to avoid being controlled by others. After all, those who dislike being in control are less likely to end up with power, or working to learn the skills involved in gaining and keeping it.”

He raised his hand to the level of his eyebrows, and peered around the room as if searching for suspicious characters, eliciting a few nervous laughs. Bungo, who’d sat next to Alderney in order to brag about being made membership secretary of the Improv Society, rubbed his leg and gave her a wounded look.

“Liking power isn’t a bad thing. It is useful, and those who’ve been betrayed or at the mercy of abusers have a legitimate reason to desire the protection that power can offer. It is said that power corrupts, and certainly some people start behaving badly once the threat of being stopped by an external force is removed. But it would be more accurate to say that power reveals the true self and magnifies it. The moment you can do anything without personal consequence, is the moment you discover who you are - what you want, and what you will or won’t do to achieve those aims.”

He nodded, almost as if he were in a discussion with himself, wrestling with internal temptation.

“So why relinquish any power? If you trust the purity of your own motives, the stubbornness of your own will and the decision making ability of your own mind, more than you trust that of other people, would it not be foolish to give them the ability to mess things up and get in your way? Why not retain sole ultimate control of as much as you can for as long as you can?”

He shook his head.

“I already mentioned that, as a movement grows, it becomes more and more difficult for one person to make informed decisions about all the aspects you still want to retain central control over. It is also hard to be a talented expert in all aspects, from publicity and security, to writing training materials and negotiating funding deals. But it isn’t just that. Your life and personality are affected by what you spend most of your time doing. It changes a person, to move from living as a normal citizen, to living as a leader who spends more time in meetings about the actions of others than in doing things themselves, and whose every waking second is urgently sought by people wanting their help and attention.”

“The longer someone retains power, the more it becomes part of themselves, and the harder it is to relinquish. The better they get at using their power, the harder it is to find a successor they trust will be equally able. The greater the control they exert over the movement, the closer it will be identified with them and be harmed by damage to the leader or to the leader’s reputation. Sharing power with others doesn’t only provide the leader with a useful sanity check and incentive to avoid grandiose delusions. It prepares both them and the organisation to be able to continue if the leader retires, while also reducing the chance of the leader burning out from stress or overwork.”

History judges us by the durability of the legacy we leave behind.

It is better to change one life every year, for a thousand years, than to change a hundred lives to no lasting effect.

“As activists, there is no better time than now, before you find yourself in a leadership position, to decide what sort of leader you want to be. Will you take power from fear and desire? Or will power be a just tool to you, that you can use when needed but later put aside with no more regret than replacing a hammer back in its toolbox? Will you swing the hammer with careless force, or use it carefully to carve something designed to last long after the sculptor has departed?”

“All power comes at a cost, to those who find themselves controlled and to those who do the controlling. Take it only for a purpose which justifies the cost, and make sure that first you know clearly what that purpose is. Take only what power you need, and focus on using it only for the purpose you took it. If you follow these simple guidelines, then you need not fear becoming the enemy, nor your movement being captured by a power-warped future version of yourself.”

He grinned, abandoning his previous portentous tone.

“As a bonus, if you set things up so that your enemies can’t deflect or subvert the movement by discrediting or assassinating a single person, or by bankrupting and banning a single central organisation, they may decide doing so isn’t worth the effort and bad publicity.”

“Next week we’ll be looking at court cases, publicity stunts, and other legal ways to work inside the system.”