💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › alan-macsimoin-anarchism-elections.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:15:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Anarchism & Elections
Author: Alan MacSimoin
Date: March 2007
Language: en
Topics: democracy, Elections, FAQ, Red & Black Revolution, voting
Source: Retrieved on 15th November 2021 from http://www.wsm.ie/c/anarchism-elections-your-questions-answered
Notes: Published in Red & Black Revolution No. 12.

Alan MacSimoin

Anarchism & Elections

The Workers Solidarity Movement, along with anarchist organisations

throughout the world, refuses to take part in parliamentary elections.

Is it not downright weird, or even hypocritical, when anarchists claim

to want more democracy than anyone else? Is this a rejection of

democracy? Alan MacSimoin tries to answer some of the questions that

arise again and again.

So, what’s your problem with voting?

What problem? We’ve no problem with voting. How do you think we make

decisions? We discuss proposals and then register how many are in favour

and how many against; or, in plain English, we vote. We do this all the

time in our own anarchist organisations, in our unions, in our community

groups.

But you won’t stand candidates for the Dail, Stormont or

Westminster, you won’t even vote in any of those elections.

We anarchists want a society where the division of people into bosses

and workers, rulers and ruled, is ended. So, we have no interest in

choosing who will be our rulers. It’s pretty ABC, you might as well ask

a teetotaller if she wants a pint of Guinness or one of Beamish.

This electoral process involves the mass of working people relying on a

few representatives to enter parliament and do battle on their behalf.

Our sole involvement is one of voting every few years and perhaps

canvassing and supporting the party through donations or whatever.

Anarchists do not believe any real socialist / anarchist society can

come about through the good actions of a few individuals. If a few can

grant us freedom then a few can also take our freedom away.

Anarchism is about real participative democracy — based on delegation

rather than representation with delegates being elected only to

implement specific decisions. Delegates would not have the right to go

against the mandate of those who elected them. Delegates would enjoy no

special rights or privileges and, unlike TDs or MPs, would be subject to

instant recall and dismissal if they disobey their mandate. This idea is

obviously the complete opposite to the parliamentary idea. We do not

seek a few leaders, good, bad or indifferent to sort out the mess that

is capitalism. Indeed we argue constantly against any ideas that make it

seem such elites are necessary.

So why do you call on people to vote in referendums such as the

referendum on citizenship in 2003, the one you called the “racist

referendum”, or referendums on the European Union?

There is a big difference between voting in order to make a decision and

voting for someone to whom we will hand over decision-making. That’s why

we threw ourselves into the referenda on children’s, divorce and

abortion rights. We went out knocking on doors, putting up posters,

organising public meetings, speaking on TV and radio, and leafleting our

neighbourhoods. Referenda are closer to anarchist ideas of direct

democracy and are, while flawed, far better than electing a politician

to office once every few years.

Even if you don’t agree with the current system, you could use

elections as a platform for your ideas.

Yes, it could certainly be argued that we could. BUT it would come at a

price – and a very costly price. We would certainly get a few minutes

every now and again to say our piece, we might even get the very

occasional favourable mention in the newspapers. But the cost of this

would be to re-inforce the clientilism and passivity which is an

inherent part of the electoral system. Elections are about leaving the

vast majority of people in the role of passive observer of political

life rather than active participant. Anarchists want to see working

class people take an active role in bringing about change in society.

Participation in electoral politics has the opposite effect. The cost is

too high a price to pay.

But wouldn’t it help to build a mass movement if we had people in

parliament?

Talk about putting the cart before the horse. What mass movement has

ever been built by having TDs or MPs? To get socialists elected implies

that there are already a lot of voters who understand and agree with

socialism, otherwise why would they vote for a socialist candidate?

Even on a local scale, look at the election of anti-hospital closure TDs

like Paudge Connolly in Monaghan. He was elected because the run down of

the health service was already a burning issue and thousands had taken

to streets. His election was a result, not the cause. And it didn’t stop

the rundown of Monaghan hospital.

The downside of his election is that it reinforced the idea that

engaging in ‘real politics’ is the way to get things done. And our

rulers just love that, it moves us back to passivity and dependence. We

can support our ‘representative’ as opposed to putting on real pressure

by means of direct action like strikes and blockades.

And why can’t you do both?

For starters, electioneering almost always results in the party using it

gradually becoming more moderate. In order to gain votes, the party must

appear “realistic” and “practical” and that means working within the

system. If you use language like ‘socialism’, ‘class struggle’ and

‘revolution’, it is said you will frighten off potential voters.

It’s a lot easier to leave any mention of it out of your election

leaflets rather than having to explain that it simply means a complete

change, and not some gang of demented maniacs marching through streets

awash with blood. And that’s just one example. You end up trying not to

offend your potential electorate, rather than trying to convince them of

your radically different ideas.

History is littered with examples of parties which started off from the

position of combining parliamentary and extra-parliamentary politics but

which became part of the system. From Marxian Social Democracy at the

turn of the 19^(th)/20^(th) century right through to the German Green

Party in the early years of this decade, we have seen example after

example of radical parties starting off from the position of declaring

the need for direct action and extra-parliamentary action. Indeed they

often refer to their electoral involvement as the least important part

of their strategy. In every single example, however, the parties

involved have ended up considering the gathering of votes as more

important than the message. The revolutionary slogans and policies

eventually get watered down in order not to offend potential voters, the

elected ‘representative’ loses touch with the real world.

And even if a political party or organisation approaches elections from

a purely cynical point of view – i.e. with no illusions in the system,

with no real interest in getting elected but wanting to use the tactic

of standing in elections to provide them with a soapbox – and even if

that political organisation manages to avoid the watering-down of its

message, there is still a fundamental problem. What message is being

given to the electorate – is it ‘Get involved, fight back, make a

difference’ or is it ‘Get involved and support us to make a difference’?

As I’ve said already, it’s impossible to be involved in the electoral

process without re-inforcing passivity and clientilism.

The campaign against the bin tax in Dublin is a prime example of a

campaign which became subservient to the electoral ambitions of various

political parties. In several areas the development of the campaign was

stunted by the fact that certain individuals who were going to be

standing in the election wanted to be the principal spokesperson and

organiser – ‘leader’ if you like — of the campaign in that area. So

trying to combine campaigning and electoralism will inevitably lead to

the campaigning becoming subservient to the electioneering.

But it doesn’t have to be like that, you can’t deny that the vote

for Joe Higgins in Dublin West helped to beat the water charges?

Well, I can. It was mass non-payment that defeated the water charges.

His own Socialist Party agrees with us on that. Getting a few

individuals elected is not what scares governments. If it were, the

election of anti-health cuts TDs like Jerry Cowley and Paudge Connolly

would have seen hospital wards reopened and waiting lists slashed. It

hasn’t, draw your own conclusion.

While we are talking about Joe, I want to say that he is held in high

regard by many anarchists as an honest and selfless socialist. And I say

this even though Joe’s existence makes it a bit harder for anarchists —

it’s easy to point at him and say “if only we could have a government of

people like Joe wouldn’t it be so much better?” And it sure would! But

there’s a problem. For every Joe there’s a Tommy Sheridan... or a Pat

Rabbitte.... or someone else who thinks he or she is bigger or more

important than their mandate.

And even if the power and wealth doesn’t go to their heads, people may

change their politics. Once elected, politicians are free to do as they

please until the next election. There is no mechanism for enforcing the

mandate or withdrawing support if the elected person does not hold to

his/her mandate. We have to hand over our decision making to someone we

have no effective control over. Society remains divided into

order-givers and order-takers.

It could of course also be argued that the political system will always

tolerate one or two Joe Higginses. In fact his existence as a TD serves

quite a useful purpose – the establishment can point at Joe as an

example which proves that their democracy works. ‘After all it can

accommodate views right across the political spectrum from Michael

McDowell to Joe Higgins’ might be their mantra. But have you ever

thought about how the establishment might react if there were a dozen

TDs like Joe Higgins? Or if there was any danger of a government being

elected on a radical socialist platform? How would international capital

react? How long do you think it would take multinational capital to

effectively shut down the Irish economy?

As Emma Goldman pointed out, “if the anarchists were strong enough to

swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong enough

to rally the workers to a general strike.” If we’re to bring about

change, if we’re to take on the might of international capital we can

only do so in the context of politicisation and direct involvement of

the mass of working class people. It can never happen as long as the

mass of people remain passive observers or supporters.

Does this mean anarchists are just negative, that we should put all

our energy into anti-election campaigns?

We don’t see this as an important activity at all. Our aim is not to

have elections where only 10% vote, that would be meaningless in itself.

In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most elections and it is possible

that up to 50% of the population is not even registered to vote. Only

someone whose brain is missing, however, would claim this meant the U.S.

was more anarchist than Ireland. Not voting may just be a sign of

despair (“what’s the point”). We want working people actively organising

and struggling for the alternative.

What we will do is use the opportunity of a time when people are talking

a little more about politics to challenge the notion that important

decisions can only be made by a very few, whether they be elected

politicians or unelected business tycoons; and put across our anarchist

ideas.

The amount of our energy that anarchists put in to specific

anti-election campaigns is tiny compared to the amount of time we spend

campaigning. Since the last election in the 26-Counties, anarchists in

the WSM, as well as producing 24 issues of our newspaper Workers

Solidarity (distributing 6,000 copies of each issue) and 7 issues of

this magazine, have been involved in huge numbers of campaigns – Shell

to Sea, Justice for Terence Wheelock, anti-racism, anti bin tax,

workers’ rights, trade union work….. If you look back through issues of

our paper or look at our website (www.wsm.ie) you’ll get something of a

flavour. So far from spending huge amounts of energy on anti-election

campaigns, the vast majority of our work is aimed at encouraging the

involvement of working class people in fighting for their rights, in

real political interaction in other words.l

If more people abstained it would just lead to the right winning

elections, more DUP and PD type politicians.

Possibly. However anarchists don’t just say “don’t vote”, we say

“organise” as well. Apathy is something we have no interest in

encouraging.

If a sizeable number of working class people refused to participate in

the electoral charade but became actively involved in their trade

unions, in community groups and in campaigns actively fighting for

change, whichever party was in office would have to rule over a country

in which a sizeable minority had rejected government as such. This would

mean that the politicians would be subjected to real pressures from

people who believed in their own power and acted accordingly. So

anarchists call on people not to vote for governments and, instead,

organise themselves and be conscious of their own collective power. This

can curb the power of government in a way that millions of crosses on

bits of paper never will.

But, even if the present set-up isn’t perfect, surely you are in

favour of democratic rights?

The right to the vote is just one element in the hard won struggles of

workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of hundred years.

Democratic rights — in short the ability to organise and promote

alternative ideas — were an important gain and one that is well worth

defending.

Obviously it is preferable to live in a parliamentary democracy rather

than a dictatorship. We don’t see any significant immigration into North

Korea, Iran or Belarus, but many people are prepared to risk a lot in

the hope of getting into Canada, the Netherlands or Ireland. It’s not

just about the prospect of having a better standard of living, it’s also

about having more liberty.

Even the most flawed democracies are forced to make concessions that

dictatorships do not, such as a certain amount of free speech, less

censorship, rights for women and gays, a degree of independence for

trade unions, letting people come together in organisations to seek

changes in the way society is run, and so on.

However we are not naive and we do realise that none of these are

absolutes. What we call ‘rights’ can be taken away as well as conceded.

The level of freedom we enjoy is set by how much the bosses need to give

in order to keep the majority content, plus the amount that is forced

from them through struggle. None of the rights we now enjoy were simply

handed down as gifts by our rulers, they all had to be struggled for.

In democratic societies life is better and it easier to engage in such

struggles. That’s why we are all in favour of defending the ‘democratic

rights’ we now have. As Mikhail Bakunin put it “the most imperfect

republic is a thousand times better that even the most enlightened

monarchy.”

And your alternative is what?

By using direct action we can force politicians to respect the wishes of

the people. For example, if a government or boss tries to limit free

speech, then anarchists would try to encourage a free speech fight to

break the laws in question until such time as they were revoked. In the

case of environmental destruction, anarchists would support and

encourage attempts at halting the damage by mass trespassing on sites,

blocking the routes of developments, organising strikes and so on. If a

boss refuses to introduce a shorter working day, then workers should

join a union and go on strike or stop working after 7 hours.

Similarly, strikes combined with social protest would be an effective

means of stopping authoritarian laws being passed. For example

anti-union laws would be best fought by strike action and community

boycotts. The example of the water charges in the 26 counties in the

late 1990s shows the power of such direct action. The government could

happily handle hours of speeches by opposition politicians but they

could not ignore social protest.

As Noam Chomsky argues, “within the constraints of existing state

institutions, policies will be determined by people representing centres

of concentrated power in the private economy, people who, in their

institutional roles, will not be swayed by moral appeals but by the

costs consequent upon the decisions they make — not because they are

‘bad people,’ but because that is what the institutional roles demands.”

He continues by arguing that “those who own and manage the society want

a disciplined, apathetic and submissive public that will not challenge

their privilege and the orderly world in which it thrives. The ordinary

citizen need not grant them this gift. Enhancing the Crisis of Democracy

by organisation and political engagement is itself a threat to power, a

reason to undertake it quite apart from its crucial importance in itself

as an essential step towards social change.”

So, far from doing nothing, by not voting the anarchist actively

encourages alternatives. As the British anarchist John Turner, General

Secretary of the United Shop Assistants Union back in the 1890s argued,

anarchists “have a line to work upon, to teach the people self-reliance,

to urge them to take part in non-political [i.e. non-electoral]

movements directly started by themselves for themselves ... as soon as

people learn to rely upon themselves they will act for themselves ...

We teach the people to place their faith in themselves, we go on the

lines of self-help. We teach them to form their own committees of

management, to repudiate their masters, to despise the laws of the

country...” In this way we encourage self-activity, self-organisation

and self-help — the opposite of apathy and doing nothing.