Anti-Wall Street: "They Reckon That Their Leaders No Longer Represent Them"
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 13 October 2011
by Audrey Garric (link to original)
(France) on 13 October 2011
by Audrey Garric (link to original)
Translated from
by Micaela Bester.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is growing in size each day in the United States. On Tuesday, Oct. 11, while several hundreds of Americans began their fourth week of occupation in the heart of New York’s financial quarter, protests of indignation took place in other cities around the country, including Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles, to denounce the greed of the financial sector, judged responsible for the economic crisis.
This mobilization, “unprecedented” in the history of the country, is a sign of a “profound malaise in American society,” believes Nicholas Dungan, United States specialist and senior advisor at the Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS).
What is the Origin of the Anti-Wall Street Movement?
Strong discontent has been apparent in American society since Congress revealed itself incapable, in July, of coming to an agreement on raising the debt ceiling — necessary to avoid a default on the U.S.’ debt. Although the law was finally passed on Aug. 2, a few hours before the final limit set by the Treasury, Americans could not understand this paralysis of the institutions faced with such a crucial deadline for their country, and more widely for the global economy. They reckon that their institutions are fossilized, that their leaders no longer represent them and that their economy is no longer so competitive, accrediting this argument to the decline of the United States.
In addition, this discontent resides within the broader context of a profound social malaise, while unemployment is at its highest (9.1 percent) and insufficient job creation proves incapable of reviving the economy.
What Do the Protesters Demand?
The anti-Wall Street protesters don’t have a concrete demand, if it isn’t being heard. They represent a wide range of the population, including women and men of all ages and professions — 99 percent of the population, as they say — who will no longer tolerate the corruption of the remaining 1 percent, which is to say the political leaders and the business sector.
They are therefore occupying the financial centers of large American cities to protest against the establishment and the incapacity of the public and private sectors to make policy and create jobs. They want more functional institutions that will put the average American back at the center of political debate.
More broadly, the anti-Wall Street protesters also proclaim a more general movement of indignation, which aims to effect global social change, more egalitarian and more participatory, in the likeness of the rebellions in the Arab countries, in Spain, in Greece or in Israel.
How Do You Explain the Importance of the Anti-Wall Street Protesters in an American Society that is Little Accustomed to Social Movements?
It is an extraordinary phenomenon. These hundreds of Americans, who have filed into the street spontaneously and without a particular agenda to manifest their discontent, represent a new form of political engagement, which stands out sharply against a very marked individualist tradition. For once, a group proclaims a common interest and not the particular interests usually represented by different parties and associations. The United States has not seen such a mobilization since the tent city erected in Washington during the Great Depression, then under President Herbert Hoover.
The American press has compared the emergence of the anti-Wall Street protesters with the tea party movement, which brings together citizens who are unhappy with institutions. But in reality, these two movements are very different: The tea party is a political movement deeply anchored to the right, which organizes rallies and speeches rather than protests or occupations of places. In contrast, “Occupy Wall Street” belongs to a popular, apolitical, grassroots movement.
Do You Think that This Movement Could Last Until the General Elections Next Year?
Yes, I think it could last and even grow in size, on the condition that it reinvents itself. It could also choose to transform into a political party, or to join with an existing party. But this choice could either legitimize it or delegitimize it.
In any case, Democrats as well as Republicans will have to compromise with them. Already today, the Democratic Party has expressed itself in favor of the anti-Wall Street protesters. And a week ago, the unions, powerful and rich in the United States, joined the movement, thus allowing it to carry on longer.
Even if, in the end, we don’t have a May ‘68 in the United States, due to the lack of a real culture of mobilization and of a concentration of mobilization in just one city, the movement should certainly lead to changes in the functioning of institutions.
This mobilization, “unprecedented” in the history of the country, is a sign of a “profound malaise in American society,” believes Nicholas Dungan, United States specialist and senior advisor at the Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS).
What is the Origin of the Anti-Wall Street Movement?
Strong discontent has been apparent in American society since Congress revealed itself incapable, in July, of coming to an agreement on raising the debt ceiling — necessary to avoid a default on the U.S.’ debt. Although the law was finally passed on Aug. 2, a few hours before the final limit set by the Treasury, Americans could not understand this paralysis of the institutions faced with such a crucial deadline for their country, and more widely for the global economy. They reckon that their institutions are fossilized, that their leaders no longer represent them and that their economy is no longer so competitive, accrediting this argument to the decline of the United States.
In addition, this discontent resides within the broader context of a profound social malaise, while unemployment is at its highest (9.1 percent) and insufficient job creation proves incapable of reviving the economy.
What Do the Protesters Demand?
The anti-Wall Street protesters don’t have a concrete demand, if it isn’t being heard. They represent a wide range of the population, including women and men of all ages and professions — 99 percent of the population, as they say — who will no longer tolerate the corruption of the remaining 1 percent, which is to say the political leaders and the business sector.
They are therefore occupying the financial centers of large American cities to protest against the establishment and the incapacity of the public and private sectors to make policy and create jobs. They want more functional institutions that will put the average American back at the center of political debate.
More broadly, the anti-Wall Street protesters also proclaim a more general movement of indignation, which aims to effect global social change, more egalitarian and more participatory, in the likeness of the rebellions in the Arab countries, in Spain, in Greece or in Israel.
How Do You Explain the Importance of the Anti-Wall Street Protesters in an American Society that is Little Accustomed to Social Movements?
It is an extraordinary phenomenon. These hundreds of Americans, who have filed into the street spontaneously and without a particular agenda to manifest their discontent, represent a new form of political engagement, which stands out sharply against a very marked individualist tradition. For once, a group proclaims a common interest and not the particular interests usually represented by different parties and associations. The United States has not seen such a mobilization since the tent city erected in Washington during the Great Depression, then under President Herbert Hoover.
The American press has compared the emergence of the anti-Wall Street protesters with the tea party movement, which brings together citizens who are unhappy with institutions. But in reality, these two movements are very different: The tea party is a political movement deeply anchored to the right, which organizes rallies and speeches rather than protests or occupations of places. In contrast, “Occupy Wall Street” belongs to a popular, apolitical, grassroots movement.
Do You Think that This Movement Could Last Until the General Elections Next Year?
Yes, I think it could last and even grow in size, on the condition that it reinvents itself. It could also choose to transform into a political party, or to join with an existing party. But this choice could either legitimize it or delegitimize it.
In any case, Democrats as well as Republicans will have to compromise with them. Already today, the Democratic Party has expressed itself in favor of the anti-Wall Street protesters. And a week ago, the unions, powerful and rich in the United States, joined the movement, thus allowing it to carry on longer.
Even if, in the end, we don’t have a May ‘68 in the United States, due to the lack of a real culture of mobilization and of a concentration of mobilization in just one city, the movement should certainly lead to changes in the functioning of institutions.
Next article![]( "Nobel Peace Prize (Almost) without Controversy")
