Can Occupy London achieve anything?

The Occupy London protests, inspired by and established in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City, has occupied the forecourt of St Paul’s Cathedral, minutes away from the London Stock Exchange, since 15 October 2011. The protesters, like others of the Occupy movement, have stated their opposition to corporate greed and social and economic inequality. Like others of the international Occupy movement, the protesters claim to represent the frustrations of the majority in society with the slogan ‘we are the 99%’.

Support for Occupy London (or ‘OccupyLSX’) has been mixed but is arguably well positioned to gain momentum. Against a backdrop of high unemployment, rising inflation and opprobrium for the financial sector, in principle, many would probably empathise with the protesters’ frustrations (albeit not to the extent of being motivated to camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral). But despite this, any momentum doesn’t appear to be forthcoming.

With a lack of clear aims, a less than receptive audience in the coalition government (where the Conservative Party, ideologically not a natural supporter of the protesters’ cause, is the majority partner) and the fallout from resignations and controversy surrounding the clergy of St Paul’s Cathedral, Occupy London has struggled to make inroads. Can Occupy London therefore achieve anything with its current approach?

Occupy London has set out a broad opposition to corporate greed and a desire for social and economic equality. With a nebulous statement of aims, Occupy London has failed to articulate a credible alternative to the status quo. Not dissimilar to the wider Occupy movement, without refined aims, Occupy London will therefore surely continue to fail in galvanising wider support.

The protesters’ failure to establish clear aims has also mitigated their ability to target and lobby an audience that can advance their cause. This has been exacerbated by the debate they hope to encourage having less presence in mainstream politics than would be desired. Some Labour Party supporters may have hoped Labour could have capitalised on this in desperately seeking to reinvent itself and capture the public mood but the party has failed to do so.

As a mainstream political party, Labour would find it difficult to wholly support the Occupy movement without further alienating itself from the business community. In defending what many business leaders criticised as an anti-business message in his keynote speech at the 2011 Labour Party conference, Ed Miliband defended his comments to the media, telling the BBC “this isn't anti-business; it's anti-business as usual”. Subsequently, Labour has failed to meaningfully contribute to the debate generated by the Occupy movement.

The Labour Party has struggled to position itself to appeal to a cross-section of the electorate as New Labour once did. Occupy London presented an opportunity for the party to enter the debate and reaffirm its commitment to social and economic equality as one of the pillars of the Labour party. Alas, whether Miliband could strike the balance to successfully articulate this while not appearing anti-business is certainly doubtful and it represents another missed opportunity for Labour.

Occupy London has also presented challenges for the clergy of St Paul’s Cathedral and the wider Church, probably the most publicised aspect of Occupy London while a site remains at St Paul’s.

Initially, the protesters were welcomed by Rev Dr Giles Fraser, the Canon Chancellor of the cathedral, but the welcome by the cathedral was short lived. Amid health and safety concerns, the cathedral was closed for the first time since the Blitz, a move that arguably raised the profile of Occupy London but not for the reasons it would have hoped. Given the iconic status of St Paul’s Cathedral, its closure may even have led to some disdain for the protesters.

Following the protesters reorganising themselves to address the cathedral’s concerns, the cathedral was reopened. However, this coincided with Giles Fraser’s resignation. This was a decision made in light of concerns that any action to remove the protesters could lead to their forcible eviction and in the name of the church; a principled and admirable decision that clearly played on his conscience. His resignation wasn’t the only causality of the controversy. Following the decision to pursue legal action to remove the protesters, another member of the St Paul’s clergy resigned. And in an even bigger departure, the Dean of the cathedral, Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, also resigned, announcing his position as ‘untenable’ in a statement issued by St Paul’s Cathedral.

Legal action to remove the protesters has since been suspended but the episode has forced the wider Church of England to ask itself questions over the handling of the protests and where it should align itself in the debate.

Occupy London presented the Church with an opportunity to become vocal in the wider debate posed by the movement, particularly in an ever increasing secular society where its relevance is no longer a given. While the Church need not support Occupy London per se, it should have seized the opportunity to speak out on the social and economic inequality that underlines the Occupy movement.

Inadvertently, Occupy London has raised significant questions for the Church. The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, has subsequently supported the protesters’ cause (but not the protests remaining at St Paul’s Cathedral) and there is a sense that the Church realises its priorities may have been misplaced when considered in a wider and social context.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has also entered the debate and announced his support for a Tobin or ‘Robin Hood’ tax, a small tax placed on financial transactions. The campaign for a Robin Hood tax brings a credible and achievable aim and the Archbishop’s support is a profound contribution to the debate following the fallout surrounding the St Paul’s Cathedral.

Unlike many protests, the Occupy London site at St Paul’s Cathedral does not appear confrontational. Even critics of Occupy London cannot suggest the protests are anything but peaceful. With a general assembly, regular speakers, music and ‘Tent City University’, a centre for learning within the site, the atmosphere is not one of urgency and instead akin to a commune. It could be argued that the protesters are not protesting but merely encouraging dialogue to bring their cause to prominence in the hope that it will effect change.

Occupy London has expanded from St Paul’s Cathedral to an additional site in Finsbury Square (‘OccupyFS’) and Occupy London has said further sites will follow. If subsequent sites are established, it is still questionable if they will have the impact required to effect the change they desire.

Occupy Wall Street, the inspiration for Occupy London, began in fairly lacklustre fashion. However, the number of protesters eventually grew and the protests themselves multiplied around the United States and abroad. Nonetheless, this has arguably not achieved anything tangible beyond increased visibility that has perhaps encouraged debate surrounding the status quo. While Occupy London may grow in the same fashion, it may be subject to the same fate.

While it’s still early days, Occupy London appears to have achieved very little. The protesters should be commended for holding a peaceful protest that appears to be content in stimulating debate in the hope that it will gradually effect change. Yet this passive approach is unlikely to be effective, especially with a lack of realistic aims and a credible alternative that can be championed by others. On reflection, the most significant consequence of Occupy London has been the controversy and subsequent debate within the church on its position over social and economic equality and the ills of corporate greed.

Without refined aims, Occupy London cannot achieve anything beyond dialogue. But given its approach, maybe that’s just fine with them. The movement may claim to represent the 99% but they’ve certainly not captured their attention. And until they do, their achievements will remain limited at best.

SHARE: