So, Ontario, Canada’s most unbearably self-righteous Province, just concluded another one of those spiffy “election” things everyone is getting so worked up over these days. As of this writing, it’s still not entirely clear just how low the voter turnout was but it seems to be definitely below 50%—the lowest in Provincial history.
The McGuinty Liberals who a fell just shy of a third out-right majority government, will now form what ol’ Dalton is idiotically referring to as a “major minority.” And what exactly is a major minority? Well, it’s when you win 37% of votes from a voter turnout that represents an impressive 47-49% of the eligible population. You know: a major minority.
Just before the last Federal election I wrote a piece explaining why I would not be voting; I got a lot of flak for it but I’ve remain committed to the principles I established in that piece. They were follows:
1. Our electoral system is broken, as such, my vote is meaningless.
2. The parties running are inept and/or disingenuous.
3. Continued electoral turnout on the part of voters is making matters worse, rather than better.
Many will accuse me as being “part of the problem” but I ask you: really? Is this what you understand as “democracy”? Every four to five years you got a gym or a church basement, mark a single piece of paper and then walk out to go about your life—still poorer every year and more and more politically ineffectual. That’s it? Is this what people in Egypt are struggling over? What people in Syria are dying for? Hardly. Even if we had 100% turnout, this still wouldn’t be a democratic system.
The logic of righteous indignation that somehow wishes to equate non-voting in Canada with tacit support for Hosni Mubarak & Co. should be offensive to anyone able to reason their way out of a paper bag—one marked with Exit signs at that. For one thing, it erroneously assumes that we, in the West, are living in “the most democratic” of regimes which is patent nonsense. What happened in Tahrir Square and is continuing to occur across the Middle East and North Africa is a far more substantive experience of democracy than the sad mummery we “enjoy” in Canada. People are actually organizing, directly influencing the social space around them—in schools, factories, and in the streets. To compare these revolutions, these wonderful, frightening, chaotic, liberating moments of blood, tears and unbridled joy to the conservative, reactionary, entirely symbolic performance(s) we call elections, which we call our democracy—that is what is offensive, friends.
Democracy!
Now, I fully admit that a significant segment of the non-voting public is simply uninformed, purposefully ignorant if you will. Unfortunately, young people make up a disproportionate section of this group. But as someone who interacts with said young people on a regular basis, I can tell with a great deal of confidence: they are entirely justified in their positions. They don’t vote because they don’t perceive politics as having an influence on their lives, that their votes don’t matter, that politicians are all crooks and lairs and in a few, astute, cases they will note that the system itself is rigged.
They are wrong that politics does not influence them—but certainly much effort has gone into creating such a perception. The material dispossession of the global working classes as typified by the global capitalist system could only have been achieved, in large part, through the wilful and targeted dumbing down of society as a whole. There is a reason why the Casey Anthony trial was reported on with all the breathless hysteria of the Second Coming while America’s wars, debt and general social collapse are tucked in somewhere between the Sports pages and the Sudoku.
As for the rest? Well, I think I’ve said my piece on the rest.
But it is interesting that after decades of declining voter participation and now the effects of the years-long global economic crisis, we are finally beginning to see the emergence of a more genuine, participatory model of democracy in the West. The “occupations” which have been sweeping across North America are a hopeful sign and a reflection of the actual history of democratic progress. Democracy is something which happens amongst mobilized populations—not something that happens between isolated individuals pulling levers to gently rotate the edifice of a bureaucratic leviathan an inch to the left or an inch to the right. If anything, democracy is marked by the struggle against not the approval of such monstrosities.
Never in history has “representative democracy” been anything more than an attempted by the rich and powerful to curtail the democratic aspirations of the masses. No revolution has ever demanded the rotation of its oligarchs as its principle aim—it has merely had to settle for as much when the forces of reaction and privilege have coerced or tricked it into accepting this “compromise”.
It is unlikely that this knowledge is widely known amongst the “rank and file” participants of this new wave of occupations. But it doesn’t matter. That’s the crazy thing about democracy: it’s not a historical or ideological project which one has to memorize or copy—it’s not an ism. No, it’s something entirely organic to the human experience, something humanity keeps discovering and rediscovering, shaping and reshaping. It is something which depoliticized and hyper-politicized youth and workers alike in Fortress North America as much as in the dictatorships and juntas of the Middle East are reimagining—liberating.
Follow the Instructions.
It’s like this, friends: Dennis the Peasant was right: “Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” It’s time to stop pretending our own aquatic ceremonies are anything more than a farce. The participation rate there is irrelevant—the lower the better, frankly. It’s time to completely delegitimize these dog and pony shows. The real participation rate we should concern ourselves is the one in the streets of New York, Los Angeles and soon Vancouver, Toronto and all across this continent. Only there can we truly build something, create something, influence each other, care for one another.
Friends, if you actually care about democracy, if you actually care about the democratic experience, then get out of the god damn gym and into the streets!
Jasmin Mujanović
Latest posts by Jasmin Mujanović (see all)
- “Bebolucija!”: The #JMBG Movement in Bosnia-Herzegovina - June 11, 2013
- Why does ArcelorMittal hate Bosnia? - December 22, 2012
- Fair Weather Friends: Western Reaction(s) to the Middle East Protests - September 14, 2012
Overall, I agree with your points on not voting.
If I have one demand to those who are in power, I demend democracy. We do not currently have it with our antiquated and undemocratic first-past-the-post voting system. It is a system which is designed to discourage participation. We need some form of proportional representation so that more citizens will be willing to participate by voting and running for office. Under our present system, first-past-the-post is akin to stuffing the ballot box.
If Canadians really want democracy federally and within our provinces and territories, we will likely need to take to the streets. We should not expect the political parties to give it to us out of the goodness of their hearts. They represent the oligarchy. They will keep our current undemocratic voting system. They won’t care if only 40, 30, or 20 percent of people vote. However, if there were to be a major economic, social, or natural crisis, a undemocratic regime may find it difficult to gather support from the citizens unless it chooses to force us into participating.
Right you are. I am not against people attempting to “reform” the electoral system, and like I said in the previous piece, I am very much a supporter of PR. But I think the growth of these occupations is as important a phenomena and one that more accurately represents what actual democracy ought to look like, even more so than the most ideal PR system.
I can definitely see your points there, my major opposition to them is that you show a well conceived, logical, sophisticated argument to get to the point; let s just do f*** all, and go in the streets to claim something that is not defined. About our political system, I understand that you believe after the revolutions, this type of representation was always a sort of counter revolution by the elites to keep a hold on the masses.
However, if you look at different political systems thought out, it s just the most obvious when reasoning about a population s self-governance. They have a more “direct” system in Switzerland, does it keep the country from being a very corporatist structure?
The reason why I only see cynicism in your arguments point is the question what after. If somebody is for the fall of a system as important as our parliamentary one, you ought to have not only an alternative, but a massive one, a whole theory, something that would take lives and lives of work from genius intellectuals.
To finish, if people would mobilize in the streets, they could also in the voting booth, of course is only a small part of the whole thing. You undermine the actual electoral system by saying its only a small individualistic gesture, you do the same mistake people do every four years, thinking it is only about that little piece of paper.
If people were to mobilize in the streets, they could also form little political associations from their neighborhood, present a decent candidate and people who got involved in the first place would actually know who to vote fore instead of getting cynical about their “corrupted, corporatist, bastardish, uncaring” leaders.
While I can respect that you might disagree with my argument, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to suggest that my point here boils down to “let’s do fuck all”.
For one thing, I do have ideological/theoretical commitments. If you’ll go back through my previous pieces you’ll see that I do identify as an anarchist and this piece is clearly informed by anarchist thought. Nonetheless, I am not in the business of ideological preaching, and as such am much more interested in the actual, procedural, “actually existing” experience of everyday people. While I do think anarchist thought has a great deal to teach us, I am not remotely interested in having people “identify” as anarchists as a goal.
In any case, at no point was I suggesting that these occupations are an end goal in and of themselves. However, they are an important step in a different direction. Occupation can lead to expropriation and expropriation leads to direct democracy in the work place and in the university and in the street. Any place where people interact can and ought to be democratized–this is what I think people are coming to realize throughout the course of these events. It’s certainly not the first time, but it’s the first time in a long time.
This recognition will hopefully lead to the realization that “representation” is unnecessary, even in populations of millions. It’s not a function of size, it’s a function of form. Delegation might be necessary–but that is a different concept. This is where I am on board with your idea of neighborhood councils etc. But neighborhood councils don’t count for much if the people they send to “represent” you just go ahead and do whatever they want. They don’t count for much if the actual political aspect of your democracy is happening behind closed doors, in a one-way dialogue.
I’m for a radical de-evolution of political power, at the very least. That’s why these occupations excite me because I think it’s an organic discovery of the same principle by masses of people, without party or state intermediaries “educating” them.
I totally get some of your points there.
Basically my point is if we are to build that power from the people, we need to organize it to a “certain extent” so it doesn t simply evolve in a outlet for the people s anger about the oppressive policies. It also needs to present ideas, plans and grievances. This is not to say they should shape into a very structured platform. They could be heterogeneous diverse, but still cohesive, simple and short, but concise. Just so the rest of the people know what kind of liberty people are fighting and getting beaten for. This my main problem, with, for instance, occupy everything, demand nothing. Power is not worth it if it s solely built on anger of the masses and not ideas. Otherwise it is just closing the cycle of things. I am also for reduction of the political power, what I mean is you still need to show and alternative that will appeal to people. For instance, the USA are to big of a country, this is not to say that ALL of its institutions should be abolished. Perfect self governing is realistically never going to happen.
I could summit this by saying: Occupy everything, ask the system presently in place to account for what it has done to billions of people.
PS: I acknowledge I didn t read all your previous posts that establish your specific positions. I should have done this in the first place.
I am suspect that the system will be willing or able to entertain such demands. Nonetheless, I think your points are reasoned and have much validity to them; they raise constructive criticism. I hope you bring your brand of “skepticism” to the occupation(s) movement, to improve the experience and the potential for everyone involved.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
By advocating not voting you are simply falling for the strategy of the current ruling elites. That’s the purpose of all the negative adds they run, to drive down the vote. And you are falling right in with their program.
I say not only vote, but get involved in a political party. And when you vote follow the principal “unless you, the government in power for the last few years, do something concrete and clear that makes my life and my friends lives better, I will never vote for you.” Doesn’t matter who that government was, if they aren’t working for you get together and kick them out. Eventually, they will get the message.
Someone who is a member of a political party gets two votes because they get to first decide or help decide who that party will run, and then they get to vote again for (or against if they don’t like the choice) that candidate in the election.
Find the party that fits your understanding of the world most closely. Go to their meetings, join their executives (and that’s easy, just hold up your hand and say “I’ll do it”. Because I did that I know personally my MLA and my MP and can talk to them just about any time I want to. And because I am on their riding executives they listen.
And if, after awhile, you find they don’t fit you, get out and join another one.
There is only one truly revolutionary act in Canada, and that’s the exercise of your franchise.
I’ll focus on what I think is the heart of your argument: “Eventually, they will get the message.”
Good luck with that. I for one am not in the business of blind hope. I think the two pieces I’ve written on voting have explained my position about as clearly as I can. Anything more would be just needless repetition.
Merely saying that I’m wrong without providing any evidence is not an argument. It is merely a refusal to engage. I wonder why you are running a blog if you don’t want to discuss things with people who have different viewpoints.
I’ve been involved, off and on, in a certain political party for maybe forty years or so. Now that I’m retired I have time to do my little bit more.
I know for sure that my involvement has made a difference. Not large, but visible. I’ve been there. Where have you been?
Pretending there is no difference and that democracy (even the broken form we admittedly have currently)is pointless and meaningless. As Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.
That was meant to be “Pretending there is no difference and that democracy (even the broken form we admittedly have currently)can never work is pointless and meaningless.”
People who give up in despair also make a difference, but one for the worse.
Ed, I have written two articles on this website on my issues with our electoral system. I’ve established at least three concrete principles why I think it’s a broken system, and one that does not even feign at being democratic. So, to your claim that I am merely stating that you are wrong without engaging–no, I’m not. I simply have no desire to have another circular conversation about points I’ve already addressed.
I don’t think you’ve offered anything in the way of a new critique of what I’ve said here. I don’t think substantive change can happen through our electoral system–I’ve outlined twice over now, why I thin that is the case. You disagree. Fine.
However, the fact that you seem to accuse me of thinking democracy to be “meaningless and pointless” really just illustrates to me that you haven’t done much in the way of a serious reading of what I wrote. I have quite consistent about the fact that I am a very, very big proponent of democracy. It’s exactly why I’m so critical of our electoral system, because I think it profoundly anti-democratic.
Moreover, I have been involved and continue to be involved with a number of political causes. As such, your suggestion that, essentially, the only legitimate political activist worthy of the name is the sort within party structures is patently absurd and indicative of precisely the sort of mentality I am arguing against.
I suggest that if you’re so committed to civic engagement you take good, long hard look at the system we have today and ask yourself whether or not it has much to do with democracy at all, other than a name brand. It’s very easy to sit on a high horse and bemoan the “lazy” and the “un-engaged”. It does little to address the actual issues however.
I have little interest in re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic or worshiping false idols. Our electoral system is un-democratic. I refuse to participate in it. This does not make me anti-political or an anti-democrat. Quite the opposite.
“I have little interest in re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic or worshiping false idols. Our electoral system is un-democratic. I refuse to participate in it. This does not make me anti-political or an anti-democrat. Quite the opposite.”
And yet this “undemocratic” system managed to bring down a sitting premier and force the government of the day repeal a hated tax, or at least to pretend they are going to. If they get re-elected watch that promise disappear.
Of course our system is far from perfect, we need to improve and extend democracy. But withdrawing from it because you don’t like the way it is now won’t help do that, it will delay it. Because the only body with legal power to change the system is the government of the day.
One real problem with our democracy is that it does not extend into our work places. Legally, in B.C. and Canada an employee is a chattel servant of the owners of the business she or he works for. Look it up! Workers have no say in who orders them around, and are compelled to follow orders for forty or so hours a week. We work in feudal hierarchies!
So yes, I’d like to extend and improve democracy in many ways, but that will never be done by refusing to vote in the democracy we do have!
By refusing to vote you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If it were not so then the power elites and their fully owned political parties would not use negative attack adds to drive down participation in democracy. But they do, because they know it is in their interest to turn people off and make them give up. That’s how elites gain power and when you advocate not voting you are advocating helping them to do so.