The election season is again upon us – this year’s parliamentary elections in Lithuania and the presidential elections in the US (2020-11-03) are only two of the more prominent examples for me. It is almost inevitable that in our democracies once elections are near, one will hear vigorous repeated statements of the importance of voting. There will be no better time to examine the context and implications of such outings. Let’s start at the relationship of elections and democracy:
Democracy and elections are improperly conflated.
The first problem we have to consider is how political power is allegedly implemented in our countries. Most of this is covered in this Guardian article Why elections are bad for democracy. A point worth to make again is the absurdity that elections are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) – Article 21
Why is the particular way to express the will of the people included in these so called “universal” laws? Is it implied that other systems are not allowed or automatically worse? Furthermore, is the current electoral system the best system we could come up with with current technology? Are elections, i.e. going to the voting booth once every other year a good system to know the political position of most people, to empower most people politically? Some questions beg the answer and these certainly suggest a resounding “No”.
Elections contain additional problems – who determines the lists of candidates or the questions of referenda? The repertoire of possible behavior is as important as the behaviors themselves. When people don’t have power in controlling the questions posed, what kind of “choice” in any liberal sense is this? The cherry on top is that the elected officials have no obligation to do as they said or “promised” in their election campaigns – whatever is proclaimed, the same is afterwards discarded. Thomas Piketty adds:
First, equal political rights are illusory when the news media are captured by the power of money, which gives the wealthy control over minds and political ideology and thus tends to perpetuate inequality. The second criticism is closely related to the first: political equality remains purely theoretical if the way political parties are financed allows the wealthy to influence political platforms and policies.
Thomas Piketty (2020) – Capital And Ideology (p. 451-452)
This is illustrated in numerous movies and books, e.g. The Great Hack (2019), The Social Dilemma (2020), Brittany Kaiser (2019) – Targeted. The power of money affects election results – so do these correspond to the interests of the many or of the rich?
Despite all this, let’s say elections are a good way to implement democracy and ensure the will of the people. We come to another problem:
Decisions are not made in the political sphere:
According to the words of the president of the German Bundestag and former German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble in one of the (still) unrecorded Eurogroup meetings retold by Yanis Varoufakis in this video:
Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.
Wolfgang Schäuble (2015) as reported by Yanis Varoufakis
So, on the one hand we have pompous declarations of the importance of elections, of critical decisions made, turning-points, while in Realpolitik behind closed doors (no wonder one of Varoufakis books is called Adults in the Room) it is admitted otherwise. Most important decisions are made by the rich and powerful, while elections are a facade to mask this.
Once again, despite this, let’s say decisions are made in the political sphere and affected by elections. We encounter yet another problem regarding the nature of the decisions.
Economic/political decisions are predominantly made according to the interests of the richest.
Here, we must turn to the sociological works examining the policy changes in relation to the preferences of various income level groups. Examples are Gilens (2005) in the US and Elsässer, Hense & Schäfer (2016) in Germany:
Most middle-income Americans think that public officials do not care much about the preferences of “people like me.” Sadly, the results presented above suggest they may be right. Whether or not elected officials and other decision makers “care” about middle-class Americans, influence over actual policy outcomes appears to be reserved almost exclusively for those at the top of the income distribution.
Gilens (2005) – Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness (p. 794)
Therefore for the first time for Germany we could show that political decisions correspond with the attitudes of higher income groups with a higher probability, whereas for low income groups either no systemic correspondence can be shown or even a negative relationship.
Elsässer, Hense & Schäfer (2016) – Systematisch verzerrte Entscheidungen? Die Responsivität der deutschen Politik von 1998 bis 2015 (p. 42)
Research has shown that both parties [Republicans and Democrats] tend to respond more to the preferences of elites than
Thomas Piketty (2020) – Capital and Ideology (p. 619)
to those of more modest voters.
So much for the liberal fetishization of round-table discussions where all interested parties (stakeholders in corporate parlance) sit and work out the course of actions most beneficial for all. We can go so far and say that any discussions of public interest that take interests of the powerful into account (in other words of private interests) are already lost. The best example here would be policy change agreements with the smoking or alcohol industry.
In simpler words, we see that rich groups get what they want, while poor or even middle-income groups have practically no say in politics. This is a proper place to mention the infamous and thorny issue of populism that is discussed in Paul Schreyer’s (2018) book Die Angst der Eliten (The Fear of the Elites). Populism is most often presented as a big evil, that it’s seeking cheap popularity. But come to think of it – what’s in essence wrong with representing the interests of the many, of the ordinary people? Shouldn’t democracy be the rule of the people? Shouldn’t the interests of the weak be defended against strong, against the overpowered businesses and corporations?
Despite this, let’s say then that decisions that are made in the political sphere are adequate and represent the views and attitudes of most people. We meet, finally, the “Go vote!” crowd. Now, as we have established the context, the futility of this discourse should be clear.
Calls to vote always carry an implicit meaning of a “correct” candidate
We have all heard this – voting is presented as the most important civic duty. Claims include both that it is a right/a privilege and a duty (paradoxically). Specifically one can hear: “let’s create the country together”, “every vote counts”, “the almighty pen” etc.
Beyond this, we have the actual invitations to go and make a decision and vote. But things are stranger than they appear – explicitly or implicitly an additional meaning is lurking. One has to make the correct choice, vote for the “normal” candidate, not vote for the minorities, not vote for the populists etc. More egregious statements include saying that minorities, old people, people from rural areas vote nonsensically and don’t know what they are voting for. We can discover even that the youth votes correctly and they should drug their grandparents or take their IDs away to prevent them from voting.
Surprisingly, this often comes from self-proclaimed liberals. All of these things are radically different from the declarations to “make one’s own mind and decisions”. This is the highest level of cynicism – while adamantly preaching that there is free will, that people decide for themselves, the same pundits assert that there are correct decisions in elections or referenda.
Nevertheless, let’s say that statements as “go vote” have no implicit meaning to vote for the “correct” candidates/parties. That still leaves us with a problem that takes us back to the beginning:
Voting is presented as the only proper way to participate in politics.
“You vote, you have your say” – right? People are encouraged to vote, while not encouraged or actively discouraged to take part in unions, local communities, to protest, strike because it is bad for the economy, employers, finances etc. Furthermore, we have this:
The next point is especially important: it is striking to note that turnout rates are linked to inequality. Turnout remains high among socially advantaged voters but declines among less advantaged voters.
Thomas Piketty (2020) – Capital and Ideology (p. 536)
Declining turnout rates among the non-privileged in society removes any doubt from the fact that their interests are not adequately taken into account. Of course, the only response from the liberal pundits and apologists is to blame the people themselves – “no voting, no bitching”, without looking into the reasons why voting turnout might be low.
We come to the following conclusions – what is the worth of this so called “freedom” and “democracy” when voting doesn’t really matter, policy is decided not by the people, communities, but by the richest and most powerful. The only illustration needed here is that political “leaders” go to the yearly economic conference DAVOS for consultations from businessmen and capital owners.
How can we claim, finally, that we live in democracies when most of our waking time is spent in totalitarian dictatorships that we call our workplaces? Even if elections mattered, can political power exercised a few times every few years instead be called a functioning democracy? Piketty agrees:
What is more, traditional representative mechanisms need to be complemented by arrangements allowing for true deliberation and participation rather than just casting a ballot every four or five years.
Thomas Piketty (2020) – Capital and Ideology (p. 455)
Radical behaviorist leftist 