Is “Occupy”
the Answer? 

Whether sustainable or ephemeral, the “Occupy” movement is international in reach. The most fervent believers insist that the “occupations” are not political, despite an obvious effort to influence political discourse in every nation where the protests have occurred or are occurring. It is believed that the Occupy protests began in July of 2011 in Kuala Lumpur. By October they had taken place, or were in progress, in more than 95 cities in 82 countries. By November, “Occupy Together” reported occupations in 2,464 communities worldwide.

Supporters have been criticized for an apparent lack of coherence, and they have aggressively shunned labels. The absence of a political strategy seems itself to be part of the Occupy strategy: when all politicians are wrong and everyone is at fault, participating in established governments—even democratic ones—is no solution.

So what’s the problem?

Do not expect a succinct, or even a single, answer to that question in an essentially leaderless, nonhierarchical uprising that cuts across the globe. The immediate aim of Occupy adherents seems to be to force the political debate away from the details and mechanics of our current economic distress—budget deficits, sovereign debt and fiscal policy—and focus attention on political, social and economic injustice. In such a discussion the politicians are not the only bad guys: also at fault are the multinational corporations who, it is believed, buy and sell them in an unrelenting effort to aggregate political power and economic wealth.

At issue are the planet’s wealth and resources and who controls them. The number of controlling parties is shrinking, and the numbers of disenfranchised are increasing. That fact is at the heart of Occupy’s populist battle cry to attend to the “99 percent” who are being marginalized by the “1 percent” who hold the power. The percentages are, in many cases, more metaphor than reality but the point is clear: governments and the wealthy elite are the architects of a world that works for them and no one else. 

Although Occupy claims to make no demands, the one nonnegotiable tenet of their belief seems to be that those who seek to influence politics and government must demonstrate that their vision of the world serves the needs and interests of the 99 percent. The quest is political liberty and a balanced sharing of the wealth of our planet. It is an ancient and familiar human pursuit, and one that Americans thought they had resolved more than 200 years ago, after declaring their independence from Britain and establishing the constitutional federal republic of the United States of America. But representative forms of government, with their democratic institutions, are proving to be as susceptible to corruption and abuse as any other form of government that has ever been devised. Current events seem to confirm Winston Churchill’s observation that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. 

The Occupy movement’s most serious proponents view it as one that calls for deep change. Their stated intent is to evidence a patient style of decision making that respects the individual and upholds the group’s declared commitment to work together with respect. Acts of violence and destruction of property have, however, tainted the occupations and now threaten the viability of the movement.

Regardless, the social and economic inequality created when wealth is amassed by a social elite, and when political influence is aggregated in the hands of a few, are real concerns. They are, in fact, among the most significant reasons governments fail. Humans cannot solve this problem—we are the problem. Interestingly, an ancient source—the Bible—provides relevant information about what is necessary to solve it. When the ancient nation of Israel was established some 4,000 years ago, its architect provided a blueprint for the structure of life within the nation that, if followed, would have created and sustained a system where socioeconomic responsibilities were widely dispersed into family-based communities. Legislation in the nation called for broad ownership of land with protective restrictions on sale and use. And there were a number of statutes designed to equalize the power in certain economic relationships—like the relationship between a debtor and a creditor.

Most significantly, the law recognized the spiritual nature of man’s problem—a selfishness we cannot seem to restrain.