Downshifting the Confusion of Powershift

“Tell me what democracy looks like… This is what democracy looks like!” These were the lyrics to one of the most-sounded chants proclaimed by the hundreds of young people that rallied for Climate Justice on April 18 in Washington D.C. The day of the rally was full of excitement, as half of the group headed towards the White House and the other half headed to the Congress to lobby with congressmen´s representatives.

But what was behind all of these joyful and youthful demonstrations? Why were the hundreds of participants there? Powershift began on Friday April 15, hosting keynote speakers that went from the popularly acclaimed Al Gore, to the most unknown grassroots activists. The energy in the room was both dense and complex. People energetically responded to speaker’s messages, whatever they were, and popular contemporary music accompanied the flashy lights that helped introduce all the speakers on stage.

But I could not stop thinking that all the paraphernalia felt like a circus: in the best Roman style, “To the people bread and circuses.” During the three days, I noticed that motivation and happiness came from the loud music, not from the informal or formal talks. People were more entertained than anything else. What was going to happen after the three days of the event? How was the power actually going to be shifted from those in the top of the hierarchies to those composing the grassroots movements and to those who suffer the consequences of social, environmental and economic injustice?

The two days of workshops revolved around the most evident and problematic structural issues killing our planet. Big corporations such as Chevron and British Petroleum and many others involved in draining the earth´s resources with their highly unsustainable practices, were the protagonists of most of the discussions around climate justice. And certainly, discussions around the dirty and corrupt political cycle framed most of the conversations led by students, panelists and others involved.

However, to my surprise, there was no substantial talk around our individual interaction with the very structures we so easily criticize. It is not hard to identify the structural problems affecting us, and pointing out the power relations that mold our contemporary world. And it is vital too. But where is our compromise?

I was wondering how many of the attendees were actually willing to sacrifice their comfortable lives, their incredibly unsustainable life models for the greater good. Everyone was, unsurpisingly, incredibly happy about “clean” energy. But what is the use of getting our energy from the sun, the wind and the water if we are going to consume energy at the same levels we do nowadays?

In order for us to have such a “normal” life, the majority of the world has to live in impoverished conditions. Think of it as an equation: Your individual welfare, which is thought of as a right by most US citizens, is equal to the malnourishment, lack of basic needs and poverty of the majority of the world. The way of life that we consider so inherent to what being a human is, is completely unsustainable and abnormal.

I know I am not being revelatory here and that I am not pointing out something entirely new. But what is true is that these truths are constantly ignored. If our standards of development have as an ultimate goal that the 6 billion people that inhabit the world can have the incredibly privileged lifestyle we live, we are completely wrong. There are not enough resources in the world to support such a lifestyle for everyone.

Yes, our economic model of constant growth and “improvement” was created when the world’s resources were thought to be unlimited. But they are not. So who are the real radicals? Those who live in hippie communities and make sacrifices on a daily basis, whether by going to jail or by living much less comfortable lives? Or those who are completely inactive? Or even those who are active in preserving their privileged status even though they are aware of injustices? I would say the latter are much more radical than what we think they are.

Exercising praxis, as defined by Paulo Freire, makes us less radical and more in tune with the world. Living in praxis is enabling a constant dialectic between thought and pragmatism to take place in our lives. It is not enough to know, as it is not enough to chant “this is what democracy looks like” on a Monday morning in Washington D.C. The undying interaction between our consciousness and our actions must be the banner we carry with us on a daily basis. Participatory democracy does not just mean to make oneself be heard; it also means to take actions against those things we recognize to be inherently flawed. Henry David Thoreau said, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” I am not asking everyone who reads this to go to prison, but certainly we do have to be more coherent with what we say and do, and making sacrifices in order to avoid taking part in the absurd play the world is acting nowadays. It is not news that those huge corporations and corrupt systems feed themselves on our consumerist practices and values. So it should not be a surprise either that our collective decisions can bring them down.

Powershift, thus, does not just mean to take power away from those who have it. We have the power. But it is in our hands to decide whether or not to use it. We must start from here, and realize that no change will come until we make enough sacrifices. •