Cristina
Flesher Fominaya

Ten years after ‘the squares’: participation, institutionalisation and the right-wing backlash 

Interview by Giorgos Venizelos

From Populism Newsletter #5, June 2022, pp. 6-8.

You keynoted the conference ‘Populism, Protest and New Forms of Political Organisation: Ten Years after the Movements of the Square’ that we cohosted with the Populism Group of the German Association of Political Science. The ‘event’ of the square movements sparked a lot of research with respect to protest tactics, organisation and political vision. What is the state of the art now, ten years after the Indignados? What new research themes have emerged? 

Ten years is a good amount of time to reflect back on what was such a convulsive and profound political experience. The movements of the squares mobilised the participation of millions of people, not just during the encampments but in a sustained trajectory of mobilisations for several years afterwards. Scholars have tried to make sense of what happened in the intervening years, and of course there have been new developments following the original ‘events’ such as the development of new political parties or the resurgence of older ones. Three main themes of scholarship that emerged since focus on origins, dynamics and outcomes. My book Democracy Reloaded addresses all three aspects for the 15-M movement. It traces the evolution of that movement, starting with a genealogical approach to its origins, evolution and consequences. One clear aspect of these movements has been their preoccupation with democracy, not just in terms of prefigurative experimentation but as a central issue. This is an ever more present concern in the context of the pandemic and the role of disinformation and misinformation in weakening the ability to respond effectively to the threats the pandemic poses, as well as increasing polarisation. 

Ramon Feenstra and I are editing a special issue entitled ‘15-M and Democracy 10 years on’ for Social Movement Studies Journal (2022). The contributions express well some of the key research themes that have emerged: the legacy of 15-M on mutualism in the context of the pandemic; the biographical consequences of 15-M; the political economy of participation and a reconsideration of some of the ‘failures’ of participation and engagement with labour/capital; and an analysis of the unintended consequences of the movement in increasing repression and criminalisation, something I have also been writing and speaking about since 2011. The experience of municipalism as a result of the movements is another area of research, as is the important resurgence of feminism and feminist economics; the collective learning produced by the movement; the generation of social capital as a result of the squares experience; and the role of the movements’ media ecologies in forging a legacy in civic engagement and communicative practices. 

Of course, research into movement-parties which have not really been studied much since the 80s and 90s, is another key area of inquiry that emerged since. There is now ever more work on right-wing parties and their relationship with right-wing movements, which is an indirect outcome of the movement of the squares as well. So, this gives you some sense of the burgeoning field of research that has been stimulated by the movements of the squares. 

‘I think we need to distinguish between parties that have strong relations with movements and "movement-parties"’

To me, the most important impact of the movements lies in the resignification of democracy and its recasting as a central problematic rather than a naturalised notion that is taken for granted. These movements emerged from a global financial crisis, but we are now in a world where cascading crises are challenging us profoundly. Our ability to address them is tied intrinsically to the robustness and ability to innovate of our democracies. 

Political parties that arose after the square movements’ experience, such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos  in Spain, sought to represent grassroots claims in mainstream political arenas and bring about progressive social change. But, as we have seen, their trajectory in power was quite disappointing. Is the institutionalisation of social movement claims the very name of contradiction? Is institutionalisation necessarily detrimental for such projects, or can we perhaps think of successful experiences in other parts of the world? 

I think we need to distinguish between parties that have strong relations with movements and ‘movement-parties’ which are the consequence of these movements and are studied as self-contained political actors. Most research does the latter, but we should be doing more of the former, although it is very challenging methodologically speaking. For the most part, movements are movements and parties are parties, with fundamentally different logics of collective action, but of course, that doesn’t stop people trying again and again to forge new forms between them, with some interesting results. 

‘I don’t agree with those who argue that the trajectory of these parties was disappointing.’

I am not sure I agree with those who argue that the trajectory of such parties was disappointing. In Spain, the fact that they governed the major cities of the country at all was a miracle given the stronghold established parties had had up until that point. City governments under Manuela Carmena and Ada Colau, for example, demonstrated incontrovertibly that it is possible to have an explicitly feminist agenda that transforms the lives of citizens for the better. They instituted important changes in urban policies (e.g. public space/environment/social welfare and energy provision/participatory innovations) and showed that a progressive agenda can be implemented successfully while massively reducing public debt and increasing transparency. They have also had an important influence on city governments elsewhere and in international forums. 

Of course, many movement actors want and expect their every demand to be immediately implemented. For this reason, movement-parties will always be doomed to fail, not least because heterogeneous and complex movements like 15-M rarely, if ever, have a unified or clear set of demands, so you can never please everyone. Movements thrive, in part, precisely because of their indeterminacy; and new movementparties are supported with such enthusiasm, in part, because of their initial indeterminacy: everyone can imagine and ‘hang’ their own particular issue and vision on to the new yet to be created party. Once the party formalises policy, many people will be disappointed. 

Cases like Syriza are very different. Syriza didn’t emerge from the squares but rode the wave of energy generated in the squares to gain electoral benefits. Such types of movement-parties have a firmly established party logic prior to this, which is much less elastic and open to change and experimentation. Institutionalisation of parts of movements can have a negative effect in co-opting leaders or sucking energy from movements to formal political arenas. But this can also be because movements have already reached an impasse or ran out of steam by that point, leaving some people looking for new options to realise their goals; while others retreat back into more submerged movement spaces. Meanwhile, new actors and movements bubble up and the cycle continues. 

The anti-austerity protest cycle is now closed but we of course observe other issues, and struggles, emerging. In recent years, ‘climate change’ has assumed a central position in political discourse. Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion but also big businesses articulate distinct visions of environmentalism which, sadly, confirms its importance. Are we likely to observe climate action? What are the prospects and obstacles? 

Environmental movements have been fighting climate change in some form or other for a long time now, and they always come up against the same issue, which is the dependence on major energy   companies and the massive power they wield over political decision makers. Consumer changes and lifestyle changes are all very good and important for many reasons. But it will take fundamental rethinking and shifting of priorities to tackle climate change. 15-M argued that real democracy means placing life over capital. Sadly, our world is still governed by a logic that places capital over life. There has been some forcing of a shift in priorities in the context of the pandemic, but the threat (and reality) of climate change has not yet provoked this change. I would like to be hopeful, but if you look at the increased criminalisation of protest in current UK legislation passing through parliament, much of which is deliberately targeted against climate activists, it is difficult to see those kinds of government taking any kind of meaningful action. They would rather spend their energies silencing dissent from people trying to save the planet. Of course, the UK is not at all exceptional in this regard, but is just one current example. 

‘Governments spend more energy silencing climate activists instead of trying to save the planet’ 

While most commonly social movements are seen as a leftist thing, we have recently observed the proliferation of right-wing protests. Donald Trump’s supporters, for example, stormed into the Capitol in January 2021. This was an unprecedented event in US politics. During the pandemic we witnessed anti-vaxx and no-mask protests, backed by the right and clashing with the police. Where are right-wing grassroots politics headed organisationally, in terms of wider appeal etc.; is this a new development? 

Social movement scholars have long ignored (for the most part) right-wing movements, for understandable reasons. As I argue in my book Social Movements in a Globalized World, we no longer have that luxury. There is a real burgeoning of the literature on rightwing movements, and this is very welcome because many of them pose such a threat to democracy and well-being. We need to understand them better. They are very effective at recruitment, mobilisation and especially disinformation for political purposes. The pandemic has provided stark evidence of how these movements can literally pose a threat to democracy and life through the propagation and mobilisation of no vax and conspiracy-drive movements. 

‘The pandemic has provided stark evidence of how these movements can literally pose a threat to democracy and life through the propagation and mobilisation of no vax and conspiracy-drive movements.’

It would be overly simplistic and empirically wrong to categorise the no vax and conspiracy theorists as ‘right-wing’, but right-wing actors have played a key role. I have an article coming out in American Behavioral Scientist called ‘Mobilizing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Democratic Innovation to the Political Weaponization of Disinformation’ that addresses this issue in terms of its impact on democracy. I also show, however, how the movements of the squares generated democratic innovation that has helped address the challenges of the pandemic. The pandemic brings these differences into stark contrast in a fascinating way. At Social Movement Studies we are editing a special issue on mobilising during the pandemic that should be out hopefully in 2022. 

Cristina Flesher Fominaya (PhD University of California, Berkeley) is Professor of Global Studies at Aarhus University. She an internationally recognised expert in European social movement and politics, the Editor in Chief of the journal Social Movement Studies Journal and co-founder of open access Interface Journal. She is the author of Democracy Reloaded: Inside Spain’s Political Laboratory from 15-M to Podemos (Oxford University Press 2020) and Social Movements in a Globalized World 2nd Edition (Bloomsbury 2020) and co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary European Social Movements (2020).