Community Protocols as Tools for Collective Action 199
moved to more contentious action choices. This choice included a move in the
communities’ position from one of asking for dialogue to one of rejecting mining
outright, which also signals a move away from the steps taken towards legal pluralism in the sense of shutting down channels of communication.
The choice of some of the communities to follow a different and more
contentious path of action also makes logical sense with regard to other aspects of
available political and legal opportunities. In terms of legal opportunities, the communities had now exhausted the path of litigation. They had then taken the much
debated decision to accept the frame of “free, prior and informed consent” and
sought to inject that framework with their own interpretation, based on a particular worldview. They later invested significant time and effort in a dialogue with the
provincial government. Their political opportunities were proving empty however –
as discussed, though dialogue continued, the provincial government continued
to make choices that favoured extractives industries. At the same time, extractive
companies were ignoring the protocol too, following their established and contested habits where consultation and consent processes were concerned. Where
opportunities for dialogue and more conventional engagement with authorities
close down, opportunities for more contentious actions open up. Opting for contentious forms of action when other paths are closed down is generally seen as clear
and logical in the literature. The reasoning is that where advocacy types of actions
are not, or are no longer, plausible, choosing a more disruptive path of action
allows a group without formal power to apply pressure on authorities by attracting
the support of public opinion, often via media coverage of the action in question.
Contentious action also serves the purpose of directly disseminating information
about the group’s position (in this case by distributing pamphlets) and recruiting
new supporters to the cause, with numbers being another important factor in wooing public opinion and pressuring authorities (Tarrow, 1998).
Another way of understanding this move to contentious action is to reflect on
the resources created by the communities in drafting their protocol. It could be
argued that the process of drafting the community protocol gave momentum for
the communities to bolster their internal organization, strengthen their internal
understanding, and become a more unified collective actor able to undertake a
peaceful road block relatively quickly and easily. Considering the geographical
spread of the single communities and the various challenges in meeting and communicating lends this view some credence, as does the fact that after the police
intervention the communities were able to convene an emergency meeting and
decide a change in their fundamental position. In that sense, community protocols can also be seen as more than collective action tools in a repertoire. They
can also be seen as important opportunities for the development or reconstitution
of communities as collective actors through the formation of different networks.
In this case, the Roundtable can be understood as a mode of organizing the
communities into such a network, allowing the different communities to come
together to form a single collective actor that pursued a range of different modes
of collective action around the lithium mining issue.
moved to more contentious action choices. This choice included a move in the
communities’ position from one of asking for dialogue to one of rejecting mining
outright, which also signals a move away from the steps taken towards legal pluralism in the sense of shutting down channels of communication.
The choice of some of the communities to follow a different and more
contentious path of action also makes logical sense with regard to other aspects of
available political and legal opportunities. In terms of legal opportunities, the communities had now exhausted the path of litigation. They had then taken the much
debated decision to accept the frame of “free, prior and informed consent” and
sought to inject that framework with their own interpretation, based on a particular worldview. They later invested significant time and effort in a dialogue with the
provincial government. Their political opportunities were proving empty however –
as discussed, though dialogue continued, the provincial government continued
to make choices that favoured extractives industries. At the same time, extractive
companies were ignoring the protocol too, following their established and contested habits where consultation and consent processes were concerned. Where
opportunities for dialogue and more conventional engagement with authorities
close down, opportunities for more contentious actions open up. Opting for contentious forms of action when other paths are closed down is generally seen as clear
and logical in the literature. The reasoning is that where advocacy types of actions
are not, or are no longer, plausible, choosing a more disruptive path of action
allows a group without formal power to apply pressure on authorities by attracting
the support of public opinion, often via media coverage of the action in question.
Contentious action also serves the purpose of directly disseminating information
about the group’s position (in this case by distributing pamphlets) and recruiting
new supporters to the cause, with numbers being another important factor in wooing public opinion and pressuring authorities (Tarrow, 1998).
Another way of understanding this move to contentious action is to reflect on
the resources created by the communities in drafting their protocol. It could be
argued that the process of drafting the community protocol gave momentum for
the communities to bolster their internal organization, strengthen their internal
understanding, and become a more unified collective actor able to undertake a
peaceful road block relatively quickly and easily. Considering the geographical
spread of the single communities and the various challenges in meeting and communicating lends this view some credence, as does the fact that after the police
intervention the communities were able to convene an emergency meeting and
decide a change in their fundamental position. In that sense, community protocols can also be seen as more than collective action tools in a repertoire. They
can also be seen as important opportunities for the development or reconstitution
of communities as collective actors through the formation of different networks.
In this case, the Roundtable can be understood as a mode of organizing the
communities into such a network, allowing the different communities to come
together to form a single collective actor that pursued a range of different modes
of collective action around the lithium mining issue.