The Movement’s Methodology of Action

Any revolutionary organization – in the sense of striving for a “decisive contribution” to the change of the existing socio-political system – deludes itself by assuming that its success is the result of a natural cumulative process resulting from the conduct of its work, with reference to what are called action plans or programs in commercial companies. Otherwise, there would have been no authoritarian social system to confront it. This authoritarian social system would have no means, no organizations, no immunity, and no possibility of “getting its act together” to perpetuate itself. Therefore, the goals of “Citizens in a State” cannot be accomplished in a mechanistic way, because any mechanical method assumes that it is faced with an inert or tame object, unless its work, knowingly or by ignorance, is part of, or in accordance with, the logic of the authoritarian system. Without the present socio-political system’s internal contradictions and the external pressures it is undergoing, there would be no history or changes in social systems, and even less collective or personal motivations for creating, joining, and working in such a movement.

On this basis, the movement of “Citizens in a State” sets itself both a strict methodological framework and a realistic and rational approach in the choice of grounds of confrontation, which clearly differentiates it from the two kinds of parties: those who have adopted immutable ideologies, that witness, as they evolve, a disconnect between practice and theory and theory and a decline in their ability to act due to societal and political transformations which leads to repeated attempts at reinterpreting the foundational discourse in order to render it apt at dealing with these transformations; and other parties that have confined themselves to limited spaces, and maneuvers characterized by opposition positions and even demonstrative ones based on moral judgements, that deny the nature of political work and action and prevent effective and organized opposition to socio-political power. We do not confuse of course these parties with organizations that are merely instruments of the regime, which, through their action and control mechanisms, contribute to the organization of society and contributing to pitting groups against each other. Each of these entities is driven by acute sectarianism in direct reaction to the general social disintegration. The Movement’s “decisive contribution” in changing the socio-political system will result from its ability, in the key moments when the system’s contradictions blatantly show, after having anticipated them and prepared itself with the knowledge and militant abilities, to propose an alternative that surpasses anything the regime can offer, that destabilizes it in its internal and external environment and moves it out of the framework it masters, without falling into uncalculated anarchy. This shift will respond to the interests of groups neglected by the regime, and will frame them in a new balance of power that will strengthen the alternative initially envisioned. A Revolutionary organization generates change not out of thin air or through some magical stunt or short-lived repression, but pulls it out like a midwife brings a child into the world.

To achieve this goal, the movement abides by the following methodologies:

To apply critical thinking as a methodological foundation, and therefore to consider, based on their effectiveness, the various theories and ideologies as relative and limited to the historical instance in which they were elaborated, hence the necessity of adapting them and submitting them to the risk interpretation.
To analyze individual and collective behaviors and initiatives through the lens of their integrations within a framework of defined and agreed interests, institutions, values, which together constitute the “social system”. Consequently, the claim that institutional structures are absolute and immutable, especially for cultural, religious and ethnic social entities should be revoked, since this claim leads to containing and altering the image of the opposition and change movement. Moreover, political judgement based on individualization which go hand in hand with simplifying moral injunctions, limited to sanctification or demonization, which seek to divert attacks on the system towards attacks on individuals and allow the perpetuation of the former by sacrificing the latter, must be rejected.
To deal with reality, it’s behaviors and discourse, as being integrated in the framework of a “societal system” while deploying the necessary effort to understand its rules, the historical circumstances specific to its construction, the conditions of its stability, the functioning of its institutional and emergency mechanisms, the limits of its control and conflict management rules within its perimeter, and the trajectory defined by the accumulation and erosion resulting from its operating rules and the evolution in its material, environmental, human and political environment.. As such, the movement scrutinizes the internal and external contradictions of the social system and monitors with precision their gravity, levels, interdependence and the resulting risks. The Movement pays a special attention to the knowledge of the cogs that play a control role within the system and to the effective powers that these cogs hold, for functional reasons, beyond the façade political discourse produced by the regime. It focuses on the grounds where the confrontation with these very cogs takes place, being twice as careful not to undermine the regime without showing alternatives and constituting forces capable of handling the consequences , and on the other hand, not to drift towards conflicts that are easy for the regime to contain and realign along the lines of conflicts that it knows how to manage in order to renew itself.