Anti-hierarchical campaigning

Toby Pettigrew

In late January, the Australian Young Greens welcomed members from around Australia to the ACT for its yearly conference – AYGCON17. I was one of the Young Greens who travelled to the conference (an arduous journey, all the way from Canberra's inner north), drawn by the opportunity to meet inspiring young thinkers, attend some great seminars, and contribute to AYG's direction over the next year.

Attendees had the opportunity to learn about and discuss a whole range of topics, including green unionism, a universal basic income, the two-party system, white supremacy, and just transitions. The speakers who presented to us were just as varied — local Elder Wally Bell welcomed us to Ngunnawal country, Jill Stein Skyped in on the US Presidential election, and a range of Greens parliamentarians, councillors, and activists came to share their knowledge and experience.

One of the sessions that really resonated with me was a discussion on anti-hierarchical campaigning. Jonathan Sri, Councillor for the Gabba in Queensland, and Jenny Leong, Member for Newtown in NSW, hosted the session, inviting attendees to consider the benefits of a grassroots approach to organising and to reflect upon strategies to make it work.

Why anti-hierarchical campaigning works

The premise of this session was that the values and practices of grassroots democracy can, and should, be carried into how we run our campaigns. At its most basic level, anti-hierarchical campaigning is about spreading responsibility and power to a larger group of people within the campaign.

Getting more people involved can bring some pretty significant advantages to campaigns:

• Breaking roles into smaller levels of responsibility creates room for marginalised communities (who often have higher constraints on their time) to participate and lead, resulting in a greater diversity of views and skills.
• As an electoral strategy, anti-hierarchical campaigning reduces our reliance on donations, and increases our accountability to the volunteers (Jonathan reckons that if he's not fairly representing his community, those volunteers that got him elected in 2016 might just not show up next time).
• You'll have a greater number of dedicated campaigners who see the campaign as their campaign, meaning they'll give more of themselves to it.
• Communities are left stronger and more skilled after an election, as more people participate and grow their organising capacity (Jenny shared that this was one of the principal aims of the 2015 campaign to elect her).
• Spreading responsibility, and particularly equipping and empowering more people to run the campaign, reduces both the likelihood and the consequences of burnout.

This doesn't mean that Jenny and Jonathan were advocating for a structureless campaign — they drew a distinction between how structured a campaign is and how hierarchical it is. Although both structured and structureless campaigns can promote the 'cult of personality', a structureless campaign typically produces 'opinion leaders' around whom a hierarchy can form. But, in this case, those opinion leaders haven't been elected and don't have the express authority of the group. Clear structures, roles, and lines of accountability are still a crucial element of organising an anti-hierarchical campaign.

Making it work for your team

I'm still sold on this approach though, because of its many benefits. If you are too, here are some practical steps to introduce it into the structures you work in:

• Break roles up into smaller roles, allowing the work of one person (hierachical) to be done by two or more (anti-hierarchical).
• Clearly define the expectations, responsibilities, and time requirements for roles, to encourage people to step up.
• Invite more people to contribute and to participate, and more than once. For a lot of people to get past a lack of confidence about their campaigning skill, they will need to be asked to help and feel valued. Acknowledge the tension between wanting to contribute and caring enough about your cause that you want someone more skilled or experienced to take over.
• As leaders, practice the skill of devolving your decision making. Reducing hierarchy can seem slow and inefficient, so test these assumptions and manage the risks they pose.
• Acknowledge that information is power, and share as much information as you possibly can. As Jonathan suggested, go as far as publishing your campaign strategy online – if you've spread your information that far you'll have the human-power to outweigh any strategic loss.
• Only hold one elected position at a time, share your role with another person (as co-convenors, co-secretaries, co-campaign managers, etc.), and introduce limited terms for elected roles.
• Agree on the values and approach of a campaign before it even starts, allowing you to trust others to make the right decisions.

ACT Greens, consider this notice that I will be bringing these ideas with me and working to devolve hierarchies.

I'll leave you with some advice that Jenny received as a young campaigner, which poses a litmus test for whether a campaign is sufficiently decentralised and supported by people power: if you can't take a break, a night or a weekend off, your campaign was never going to win.

Toby Pettigrew is one of the ACT Greens' Delegates to the Australian Greens National Conference.