What happened to the inspiring mass mobilization after the Bush administration declared its war on Iraq over? Two of the main reasons for the decline of the anti-war movement are that individuals no longer feel actively empowered and engaged with the issues; and, although many people were radicalizing in the anti-war and peace movements, many such coalitions did not connect imperialist invasion with occupation. The momentum of the “peace” movement became unsustainable just as a new, more subtle US war was beginning.

This is the dilemma of being involved with coalitions that aim only to build mass mobilizations instead of carrying forward political consciousness. Radicals have a vital role to play inside coalitions—developing and deepening the political undercurrent and building a broader movement. To build strong and sustainable grassroots movements that breakdown power and privilege, we must understand the role and function of coalition work. First, in order to build progressive movements upon socialist principles, all coalition work must be rooted in and foster a politics of anti-oppression, democracy, empowerment and engagement.

Coalitions can be an effective tool for producing mass mobilizations because they can bring together diverse groups for a common cause. They allow activists to set aside differences to accomplish a strategic objective. However, when coalition organizers limit their expectations to merely influencing an immediate condition (i.e. ending a military invasion), they limit the revolutionary potential of their organizing by isolating the issues and quashing creative impulses.

During the recent mass anti-war mobilizations across Canada, many individuals radicalized and looked for spaces to develop anti-imperialist politics. Unfortunately, many were confronted with bureaucratic decision-making and frustrated by power politics. When this kind of power hold occurs, the coalition can become rigid and inflexible, thus disempowering people while forcing them to march under a monolithic banner that lacks creativity and political engagement. Coalitions that build collective empowering actions can live beyond their immediate demands. The reality is that while numbers may bring media attention, numbers alone cannot build a movement capable of long-term revolutionary change.

Create Unity, Don’t Assume It

A common dilemma of coalition politics is in picking a starting point that allows for unity, rather than presupposing it. Coalitions are frequently made of individuals coming from a broad range of backgrounds – including liberal idealism, faith groups, labour unions and populist organizations – as well as random activists united by a particular concern. Some coalition members will have limitations on what they can sign on to. For this reason, radicals often view coalitions as containing the politics of the lowest common denominator. But this dismissive perspective is limiting.

An explicit recognition of the exploitative nature of capitalism or imperialism will not necessarily transcend into revolutionary action. In addition, internal debate over the basis of unity can disorganize coalition work. Such debates easily degenerate into arguments over words and abstract political positions that won’t necessarily become visible to the public.

Many radicals fail to recognize that praxis is far more important than language, because education is best when it happens through action. In many cases, the debate over language is merely academic posturing. Like more liberal idealist organizers who employ coalition work merely to mobilize for a single purpose, radicals who make the “maximum program” a precondition for partnership can severely limit the movement building potential of coalition work.

Radicals should not to impose a false dichotomy upon coalition work, that they are either revolutionary vehicles or reformist ones. Social change has never been that simple. In fact, radicals need to learn how to negotiate a transitional common ground and how to reinforce the revolutionary potential from every circumstance.

To move forward, radicals need a common ground with activists while continuing to advance an uncompromising political analysis. Coalitions must be founded upon genuine respect for diversity of perspective and tactics. Radicals should not impose their politics, but instead, through participation in decision-making, broaden the analysis and politics of coalition members. To do so, radicals must make allies, introduce new debate and bring related issues into the discussion.

By making connections between immediate crises and capitalist power relations, radicals may inject a broader politic into emerging social movements. By starting where others are at and extending the analysis, radicals can spark activists who might not otherwise radicalize. In this way, we can transform concern for particular conditions (like war or free trade) into a desire to change broader power relations (like racist imperialism and global capitalism). But, this perspective must be put forward in a way that is clear, principled and not condescending.

The Politics of Inclusion

Building a movement means accepting that people have different experiences and different levels of political consciousness. Many newly radicalized people need to develop their politics in their own way – so it is vital that radicals have patience. All of us are learning, and all of us need to accept that political education is a continuum. Working with others who have diverging perspectives can help to develop our own politics. Through coalition discussions over tactics or demands, we can deepen the revolutionary consciousness of ourselves and others.

Solidarity is a central requirement of any revolutionary movement. Since coalitions merge people and organizations that may not normally work together, they may also build local solidarity through participation beyond “typical” white left-wing venues. It is too easy to stay within our comfort zones and to limit our organizing to communities that share a common politic and a style of organizing. Isolationism and fragmentation are the enemies of collective strength and only serve the interests of the status quo. Consensus on how to accomplish social change can only emerge from genuine solidarity and inclusion.

Building Movements from the Inside Out

During the earlier days of Toronto Mobilization for Global Justice (Mob4Glob), the coalition operated with a broad sense of solidarity against global corporate greed and free trade but without an anti-capitalist principle in the basis of unity. A broad unity perspective allowed the coalition to bring together faith-based groups, trade unions, student organizations, affinity groups and NGOs under a banner of fighting globalization and free trade. The coalition enabled students, like myself, to tap into the resources of coalition partners. Equally important were the relationships that developed from coalition work with trade unionists, teachers and other community members. Such relationships formed from our work (not words) – from rallies to popular education to public forums – and provided a venue for activists to extend our political work outside the coalition.

These relationships helped to develop impressive solidarity work at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April 2001 and beyond. For example, many Mob4Glob radicals were later able to draw upon coalition connections to help solidify relationships between community members and the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty in the formation of the Ontario Common Front (OCF) against the Harris Government of Ontario in the summer of 2001. While direct action was never a Mob4Glob tactic, it was a central OCF tool and many groups who would not have previously endorsed the tactic now had the confidence to participate in more radical mobilizing. Many radicals within Mob4Glob had built sufficient rapport with other coalition members to deepen the politics of anti-globalization activists.

Leadership vs. Control

Unfortunately, Mob4Glob came to a stand-still when political differences became insurmountable. Over time, the coalition was plagued with power politics and individuals seeking to set the direction of the group. This same tendency towards top-down organizing recently played a role in the demise of a number of anti-war coalitions – at least in Toronto.

If building a movement is a goal of coalition work, then organizers must realize that collective strength and longevity are established through shared ownership over the coalition and the coalition’s work. The backbone of any social movement is a matrix of evolving social relationships. Therefore, coalitions must enable all participants to be active players in all aspects of coalition work – from decision-making to outreach to public representation. Only when the self-identified “leadership” facilitates collective control will coalitions model the representative, inclusive, democratic and grassroots values that socialists seek. But opening coalitions beyond the vision of their "founders and leaders" is a difficult task that only activists with a long-term perspective can tackle.