Democracy and the will of the people
Now that the dust has settled a bit after the Palestinian elections brought Hamas to power, it is worth reflecting on what the implications of that election are when we talk about "democracy".
Many pundits, when reflecting on why it is that Hamas won that election, have pointed out that many Palestinians did not agree with the party's program, but voted for Hamas anyway out of a desire to "throw the bums out"--in other words, they saw the existing ruling party as corrupt, and thus they cast they votes for the leading alternative party out of a desire to clean house.
The same situation seemed to be the case in the recent Canadian elections. Paul Martin's Liberal Party was plagued by scandals. Despite an early lead in the polls, the Liberals lost ground as voters felt turned off by the corruption issue. Regardless of ideological considerations, voters wanted to clean house. Who can seriously say that the Canadian election was a referendum on ideological questions?
There is an implicit understanding in that interpretation of the Palestinian or Canadian elections--a radical suggestion that elections are often decided on all sorts of matters that don't necessarily reflect the ideological will of the people. Yet who is willing to apply that same logic to, for example, American elections? Regularly, pundits in the US assume that if, for example, a conservative Republican candidate wins an election, it must be because the voters agree ideologically with that politician. Bush's election victory in 2004 clearly must have reflected that most Americans are conservative, according to this logic. But in reality, elections simply don't work that way.
What are the factors that influence voter choices? Candidates don't just run on issues--they run on such non-ideological questions as competence or personal style. Even when it comes to the question of ideology candidates run on a platform that constitutes a cluster of positions on a range of issues. Even if it were true that ideology were the sole factor that determined elections, it would be nonsensical to argue that the mass of voters agreed with the winning candidate on every single issue.
Most importantly, the biggest problem with elections in the US is that voters are not offered real choices. It is hard to take seriously the notion that US elections express ideological decisions when the range of ideologies made available to them are limited to those presented by the ruling duopoly. Large numbers of issues are simply not put on the table for voters to consider--they are in fact shut out of consideration. Televised debates between the two corporate-sponsored candidates of the ruling duopoly do not present a comprehensive range of issues for voters to consider.
It is time to stop considering elections, as they are conducted in western-style capitalist regimes, as if they were referenda. They are not. For decades, a majority of Americans have wanted universal health care. Why haven't they gotten it? How can anyone claim that the US is "democratic" when the people can't even get what they want?
The political system has simply worked against the possibility of real radical reform taking place in the US. Real, bona fide , radical democracy is simply missing from our political system. We have the illusion of democracy, but there is little substance behind it. The facade of democracy is what keeps people from rebelling against the system. It is time to tear down this facade and expose it for the fraud that it really is.
Many pundits, when reflecting on why it is that Hamas won that election, have pointed out that many Palestinians did not agree with the party's program, but voted for Hamas anyway out of a desire to "throw the bums out"--in other words, they saw the existing ruling party as corrupt, and thus they cast they votes for the leading alternative party out of a desire to clean house.
The same situation seemed to be the case in the recent Canadian elections. Paul Martin's Liberal Party was plagued by scandals. Despite an early lead in the polls, the Liberals lost ground as voters felt turned off by the corruption issue. Regardless of ideological considerations, voters wanted to clean house. Who can seriously say that the Canadian election was a referendum on ideological questions?
There is an implicit understanding in that interpretation of the Palestinian or Canadian elections--a radical suggestion that elections are often decided on all sorts of matters that don't necessarily reflect the ideological will of the people. Yet who is willing to apply that same logic to, for example, American elections? Regularly, pundits in the US assume that if, for example, a conservative Republican candidate wins an election, it must be because the voters agree ideologically with that politician. Bush's election victory in 2004 clearly must have reflected that most Americans are conservative, according to this logic. But in reality, elections simply don't work that way.
What are the factors that influence voter choices? Candidates don't just run on issues--they run on such non-ideological questions as competence or personal style. Even when it comes to the question of ideology candidates run on a platform that constitutes a cluster of positions on a range of issues. Even if it were true that ideology were the sole factor that determined elections, it would be nonsensical to argue that the mass of voters agreed with the winning candidate on every single issue.
Most importantly, the biggest problem with elections in the US is that voters are not offered real choices. It is hard to take seriously the notion that US elections express ideological decisions when the range of ideologies made available to them are limited to those presented by the ruling duopoly. Large numbers of issues are simply not put on the table for voters to consider--they are in fact shut out of consideration. Televised debates between the two corporate-sponsored candidates of the ruling duopoly do not present a comprehensive range of issues for voters to consider.
It is time to stop considering elections, as they are conducted in western-style capitalist regimes, as if they were referenda. They are not. For decades, a majority of Americans have wanted universal health care. Why haven't they gotten it? How can anyone claim that the US is "democratic" when the people can't even get what they want?
The political system has simply worked against the possibility of real radical reform taking place in the US. Real, bona fide , radical democracy is simply missing from our political system. We have the illusion of democracy, but there is little substance behind it. The facade of democracy is what keeps people from rebelling against the system. It is time to tear down this facade and expose it for the fraud that it really is.
Post a Comment