President Barack Obama, April 2016
Democracy is a mode of political organisation where people
in a defined group come together to decide how to run the group’s affairs,
agree on action/policies and elect persons from within the group to carry out
these policies, and act as representatives (if necessary) for outside groups.
Formal democracy is a process where competing marketing
teams offer a set of policies they think will attract votes, based on a
narrowly-defined version of the status quo.
And then, if elected, fail to deliver those policies. Because this mode of organisation is designed
up to avoid systemic change. It is very
effective.
The above is often seen as a cynical view – and it would be,
without the distinction between democracy as defined in the dictionary and
democracy as practised inter/nationally, right now.
So, the popular misconception that “politics” is “broken”,
or “doesn’t work” makes absolutely no sense.
It does work. It does exactly what
it’s supposed to do. (If by “politics”
we mean what happens in Parliament.) One
of the things it is carefully calibrated to do, through centuries of
experience, is to create public politics – politics being done and being seen
to be done.
The British Parliament (sometimes called the “mother of all
Parliaments”, in a classic example of imperial self-aggrandisement) began as a
way to check the power of the monarch, and instituted a new ruling class. This could be seen as progress – the birth of
democracy. It was indeed, in the
strictest sense: a group (wealthy merchants) got together to agree a set of
policies (mostly around paying less tax to the crown, and removing trade
restrictions), and then elected from within their number representatives to
make this happen through the instruments of Parliament.
They worked with the monarch, because they had absolutely no
problem with the concept of totalitarian control. They just wanted to get theirs and have
influence, with or without the king’s permission. An object lesson.
(The king only went to the nobles and agreed to form a
parliament in the first place to extract more tax from them to fight wars in
his own interest. That the idea of taxes
to fund public services is accepted as political orthodoxy is a result of a
modern re-alignment of democratic forces.
Another object lesson.)
Centuries later, wide-eyed young politicians enter
Parliament to “make the world better”, or “improve the lives of ordinary
people”, or “deliver justice” – as if any of that would be possible without the
systemic change that Parliament exists to deny.
The world can arguably be “made better” by act of parliament, but the
idea that this is what Parliament is for
is laughable. Unless and until
democratic forces are re-aligned again; a continuing process.
What is real is that Parliament can be made to do some
things we want it to do. It is also true
that the systemic change which could give all of us a real say in how we run
our common affairs – you know, democracy – will come from outside Parliament,
either because we bend it to our will more effectively, or because we rip it
all up and start again.
Social reformers need to be realistic – ie, know their
place, and who they work for. They will
get “reform” only if their paymasters see it as a way to keep the rabble from
the gates, or have found a way to work it to their advantage.
The best thing about Jeremy Corbyn is that he represents
(there’s that awful word again) an attempt at genuine democracy; this involves
building a strong base of supporters, invested in the project, who come
together to make policy. You know,
democracy.
In this context, the EU referendum is a classic negative
political decision for the general population: either way, we don’t win, but
one winner might make things even worse for us than the other. It’s exactly the kind of decision – and
decision-making process – that our political culture has led us to; a
completely apt sign of the times.
The campaign to leave the EU is led by people who have spent
their entire political careers trying (with some success) to dismantle all the
gains of the labour movement, who are touting the idea that, once free of the
shackles of the “undemocratic” EU, they will suddenly become staunch defenders
of workers’ rights and inevitably become more democratic than they have
hitherto proven. And spend all that
‘saved’ EU money on the NHS. Even though
they’ve been attacking the NHS for years.
And are currently planning on spending £100billion on a fucking nuclear
submarine.
Still, whoever wins, there is no need to let them get away
with the continued assault on human rights and public services.
(Oh, and of course there’s the usual 20th century
argument that itsallaboutimmigrationbutyoucanttalkaboutimmigrationcanyouitspoliticalcorrectnessGONEMADeventhoughwedontreallyknowwhatitreallyisandwevetalkedaboutnothingbutimmigrationforthelastfortyfuckingyears
and blahblahblah…)
Meanwhile, the Stay In campaign is competing for the
frightened-of-change vote.
Both sides seem utterly incapable of appealing to anything
beyond the most narrowly-defined, prurient self-interest, positing the choice
as a calculation of what circumstance will make you, as an individual, £4.83
better off in two-years’ time. This is
because that’s how the political class have marketed the last five general
elections, and are not inclined to change, since it would mean questioning
everything they do.
It’s enough to make you suspect that however we vote in this
overblown spectacle, it will be business as usual…it’s a lot like the US
Presidential election, simultaneously boring and terrifying.
Which is why both sides in the shitshower are focussed
tightly on immigration and the economy.
Both sides are obviously not discussing anything important relating to
either of these non-issues. Such as: why
can’t we have democratic control of the economy, TTIP and other transnational
trade deals and all the other shit that will still have a much bigger say in
our lives than we do or the government does or the EU will? Because, like most governments, the EU has
been steadily handing its political power to central banks and corporate
control, completely removed even from the pretence of accountability….and none
of that will change much whether we hold our noses and vote to stay in, or hold
our noses and vote to leave.
Maybe the most positive outcome of all this is that it will
force us – all of us – to face the facts that:
Everything depends on what we do next;
The ballot box is a very blunt tool for change, and one of
the least effective; so
How we vote – in this or any other poll – is not the
beginning or the end of it, and we can do plenty of other things about all of
this…(see above).
So, all that said, how should we vote in the EU referendum?
How should I know? What do you
think? What do we think?
“Don’t let
people tell you that what you do doesn’t matter. It does.
Don’t give away your power.”
President Obama (ibid)
No comments:
Post a Comment