💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000227.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:15:04.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Voting Anarchists: An Oxymoron or What?
BAD Broadside #8
While historically anarchists assiduously avoided any involvement
with electoral politics, in more recent times, at least in the united
states, some anarchists have advocated voting. The arguments these
voting anarchists put forward are generally the same as those put
forward by other leftists who are unable or unwilling to completely
sever their connection to the political process. They argue that voting
for their candidate, usually described as a lesser evil and usually
(if not always) a Democrat, is necessary to prevent united states
aggression against some favored revolutionary state (like sandinista
nicaragua), is some sort of self-defense against the more conservative
candidate, or is merely better than "apathy," as some describe
abstention from voting. While one could argue against voting simply
because it rarely, if ever, accomplishes any of the goals its
advocates claim it can, there is a more fundamental reason for
anarchists to oppose voting: voting in government elections is an
inherently authoritarian activity, and authoritarian means never yield
libertarian results.
The primary reason why anti-statists should not vote, and in fact
should oppose voting, is that the very act of voting is an attempt on
the part of voters to delegate to another a power that they could not
justly possess themselves. Government is based on coercion. While
states of various sorts provide some services and benefits to
residents of their jurisdictions, the institution of government also
utilizes cops, courts, the military, the IRS, etc, to coercively
interfere in the lives of its subjects. Anarchists argue that no one,
whether in or out of government should have such power. If this is
true, anarchists, who oppose political power and coercion of any
sort, cannot consistently advocate voting. Individuals should not have
the authority to coerce others, and therefore they should not put
themselves in a position to delegate such authority to third parties,
which is the essence of voting. While some argue that they vote only
in self-defense, the consequence of their voting is that their
candidate coerces others who choose not to participate in the process,
and therefore this method of self-defense should be unacceptable to
anarchists.
Besides being unethical for an anti-authoritarian in and of
itself, participation in electoral politics serves to legitimize the
whole political process and the existence of government. If people did
not vote, the democratic theory of government would lose its
legitimacy and politicians would have to justify their rule on the
basis of something other than the alleged consent of the governed.
This, hopefully, would make the true nature of the state more obvious
to the governed. And such a revelation would have the potential to
motivate people to challenge, evade, or ignore government interference
and coercion.
Even if anarchists could ethically participate in voting, there is
one major reason to boycott the process: any candidate anarchists help
elect will implement interventionist policies and initiate coercive
actions, the results of which will be incompatible with anarchist
goals. While voting for a Democrat may arguably make intervention in
cuba or nicaragua less likely, it could make matters worse in
israel/palestine or south africa. (Neither the ANC nor the PLO will
take a position on the united states presidential election, basically
because they support Bush, but are embarrassed to admit this
publicly.) Voters claim that a Republican will make things worse
economically for working and/or poor people in the united states;
however increased taxes, which will certainly be enacted by a
Democratic president, will further impoverish the working people from
whom they are extorted. Additionally, while people fear a supreme
court with a Republican-appointed majority, individual justices are
unpredictable (like Sandra Day O'Connor), and Democratic judges are as
willing to coercively interfere in our lives as are Republicans.
Besides not yielding the desired results, voting by anarchists
entails another weakness. Even if every anarchist in the united states
voted in the presidential election, it would not influence the
outcome. There are few enough anarchists about that their individual
votes are meaningless, since elections are decided by millions of
votes. If voting anarchists seriously believe that voting can
ethically be done, even by anarchists, then they should consider
entering the political process fully and campaigning for presidential
candidates. If it's acceptable for them to vote, it's acceptable for
their candidates to hold power in a coercive government, and it's
acceptable for them to encourage others to vote. I have not seen any
anarchists argue for active involvement in the Democratic party, but
this is a logical outcome of anarchist arguments for voting. If these
people aren't comfortable urging others to vote for their candidates,
they should rethink the justifications for their own voting.
Non-voting on the part of anarchists is not a sign of apathy. On
the contrary, it is a sign of rejection of the political, i.e.,
coercive, means of dealing with problems and living our lives. If, as
anarchists, we are serious about finding new ways of living and
interacting, it would behoove us to stay out of the swamp of electoral
politics and maintain our traditional opposition to involvement with
electoral politics in any form.
NO COPYRIGHT
Please send two copies of any review or reprint
of all or part of this to:
Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
(BAD Brigade)
PO Box 1323
Cambridge, MA 02238
Internet: bbrigade@world.std.com
September, 1992