Movement unity

[Guest guest]

>While we can disagree among ourselves, to the outside world we must

>present a united face.

 

 

This oft-voiced rhetoric is repeating the biggest mistake

that the humane movement keeps making, decade after decade, from

the misperception that as Debasis Chakrabarti put it, " We, the

animal pals, are a very small and almost isolated group on the face

of the earth. "

 

This self-limiting perception is actually dead wrong.

 

The overwhelming majority of people everywhere worldwide live

with either dogs or cats: more than two-thirds in almost every

nation where this has ever been surveyed. Approximately half live in

households with both dogs and cats. About one household in 10 feeds

homeless dogs and cats, when encountered.

 

Animal themes are historically and presently among the most

popular in art, literature, music, and entertainment. Nearly

three-quarters of the people who have ever seen surveyed list

watching birds and other wildlife among the things they like to

do--and this interest keeps zoos open and circuses on the road, as

well as supporting thousands of people who work in film and video

production.

 

Not less than 70% of the population in any nation where a

survey has ever been done agree that animals should be protected from

cruelty by law, and agree that the existing laws should be

strengthened. In most nations, the extent of agreement exceeds 90%.

 

The problem is not that people who care about animals are

few, but rather that people who care about animals have historically

done a poor job of politically mobilizing to capitalize on holding a

potentially overwhelming majority of support on many of the most

basic issues.

 

Where political mobilization has finally begun in a

meaningful manner, in parts of the U.S. during the past 10 years,

all the money and clout of the animal use industries has fallen on

the losing side in voting on election initiatives time and again,

even on hunting issues in states such as Alaska and Montana, which

have some of the highest rates of hunting participation in the world.

 

The public may not be ready yet to all turn vegetarian or

even to vote to abolish hunting, but there is a huge climate of

favorable opinion on many issues--especially in India and

China--which can be converted into political momentum, IF animal

advocates learn how to become serious political players in their

respective national and local systems, and IF animal advocates can

learn to refrain from self-limiting behavior, of which appeals for

movement unity are among the most destructive.

 

On the subject of political mobilization, I strongly

recommend Get Political for Animals and win the laws they need, by

Julie E. Lewin, published by the National Institute for Animal

Advocacy, <www.nifaa.org>. Parts of it are specific to the U.S.

political system, but most of it is equally applicable within any

constitutional democracy.

 

Much of it could easily be adapted into an Indian edition, a

Philippine edition, etc., and about half of it applies in overview

to working in any nation under any political system.

 

" Movement unity, " meanwhile, promotes insularity and

cultishness, and most important, prevents the growth by division

that is the distinguishing trait of successfully mobilizing causes.

Causes succeed when more and more organizations spring up to offer

the public varied points of entry and involvement that are specific

to their needs and interests.

 

Labor unions, for example, did not become a political force

as a monolith. Rather, they became a political force through

hundreds & even thousands of unions forming, often representing

competing groups of workers. At election time they learned to

collectively endorse candidates favorable to unionism, at often very

noisy and contentious conventions, but otherwise they pursued the

often conflicting interests of their members.

 

In the U.S., the union movement began to fail precisely when

it was too tightly united under the national umbrellas of the AFL,

CIO, and Teamsters, whose institutional interests drifted apart

from the concerns of individual workers.

 

Within the animal protection movement, " movement unity " has

historically just provided cover for bad ideas, which have included

the opposition of the American Humane Association to high-volume

surgical sterilization and vaccination from circa 1923 to circa 1963,

while endorsing killing homeless animals in endlessly rising volume

by methods such as gassing and decompression.

 

This is merely one of the most egregious examples of the

failure of group-think in the cause. Only when the founders of the

Humane Society of the U.S. and Friends of Animals were willing to

break away from the AHA, present a sharp philosophical contrast to

the public, and create a divide within the cause that persisted for

a generation was real progress against dog and cat overpopulation

possible.

 

Then it took another sharp, wide public split, when the

Fund for Animals broke from HSUS in 1968, to move the humane cause

in opposition to hunting.

 

Yet another sharp, wide split created the animal rights

movement as we know it today.

 

Still another sharp, wide split from the mainstreams of both

the humane movement and the animal rights movement (as represented by

PETA) produced the movement toward no-kill sheltering and

ABC/TNR/CNVR.

 

Each of these major splits demonstrably redoubled public

support for the broader cause. The older organizations largely

retained their support bases, while the breakaways attracted new

support from portions of the public who had been alienated from the

old positions and saw no one mobilizing to genuinely represent their

perspectives.

 

Meanwhile, down the back alley, " movement unity " has also

historically provided cover to small armies of crooks and

opportunists, who have typically gotten away with their activities

for years because everyone else was too polite to point the finger,

and too afraid that if anyone did, the public would misperceive that

everyone in the cause was a crook and opportunist.

 

Among other things, this insular attitude gave the crooks

and opportunists a head start in denouncing and smearing anyone who

might have exposed them. I have detailed the histories of many such

individuals in ANIMAL PEOPLE exposes over the years. I expect to be

detailing more.

 

Animal charities have to police each other, including

exposing authentic crooks before they can amplify bogus charges as

part of their own schemes, and of course before the opposition

points out corruption and discredits the whole cause over the deeds &

non-deeds of a corrupt few.

 

We are currently addressing the consequences of too much

" movement unity " having allowed several people of small and dubious

achievement to build platforms for themselves from which to attack

Chinny Krishna, Maneka Gandhi, and others whose stature has been

built plank by plank over many decades of highly visible and

accountable work.

 

Ironically, some of these folks seem to have understood all

too well how to work the political system, while authentic animal

advocates are mostly still just learning.

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]