💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gregor-kerr-anarchism-and-elections.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:32:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Anarchism and Elections
Author: Gregor Kerr
Date: 2001
Language: en
Topics: Elections, Ireland, Red & Black Revolution, democracy
Source: Retrieved on 8th August 2021 from http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr5/elections.html
Notes: This article was originally published in Red & Black Revolution No. 5.

Gregor Kerr

Anarchism and Elections

We are all used to the scenario. You don’t see your local political

‘representatives’ for years and suddenly when an election is called

they’re all swarming all over your neighbourhood like flies around

cowshit — the politicians and the wannabe politicians. It’s a scene

which is going to be enacted all over Ireland — both North and South —

shortly as general elections loom on both sides of the border. Yet again

we’ll have the great choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber as to

who we want to sit in Leinster House or Stormont for the next four or

five years — even though we know that it’s not really going to make any

difference.

We will of course also have the candidates who tell us they’re different

— the ones who claim to be ‘honest’, ‘anti-corruption’, even

‘anti-capitalist’. The only guarantee there can be about this election —

as with previous ones — is that you won’t come across any anarchists on

your doorstep asking you to trust in them. Anarchists have always

opposed participation in the sham of parliamentary elections and this

time around it will be no different.

Democracy??!!

The main reason why anarchists are so opposed to parliamentary elections

is because we are fervent believers in democracy — in real democracy.

What passes for democracy in terms of how parliament operates is in fact

the complete opposite. You only have to look at the recent USA

Presidential election for proof of that — the person who got the most

votes didn’t win the election, tens of thousands of people intimidated

out of voting because of the colour of their skin, ballot papers laid

out so confusingly that some people didn’t know who they were voting for

— and of course the result being declared before all the votes are

counted. Now this didn’t take place in some backward ‘banana republic’

where they’re only starting to get the hang of this democracy thing.

This was in the supposed ‘greatest democracy in the Western World’. Oh

and of course almost half of the people didn’t bother to vote at all. In

fact George W. Bush was elected president with the votes of less than a

quarter of those entitled to vote.

OK you might say, but things don’t operate like that in Ireland. We have

a very fair electoral process after all. We even use Proportional

Representation to ensure that the make up of the parliament reflects

closely the voting intentions of the voters. Does it though? At the last

general election, every single political party claimed to be opposed to

Ireland entering the NATO-led so-called Partnership for Peace (PFP).

We’re now members of PFP. I don’t remember any politician promising at

the last election that they would ensure that the gap between rich and

poor would be widened, that funds would be diverted from much-needed

spending on hospitals and education in order to give tax breaks to the

corporate sector. Yet this is exactly what has happened.

Why is it that no matter what parties are elected to government, nothing

really changes? When ‘New Labour’ replaced the Tories in Britain, did

they set about repealing Thatcher’s anti-union legislation? Did they

implement a new fiscal policy which would reverse some of the worst

effects of Thatcherism on the working class? Not bloody likely. In fact,

if we hadn’t been told we could easily have presumed that Blair was

actually leading a Tory government.

Likewise in Ireland (i.e. the South) over the past decade there have

been 5 different parties in government (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour,

Democratic Left, Progressive Democrats). Yet the change from one

government to the next has been unnoticeable — policies, economic or

social, haven’t changed. Now there are two more parties waiting in the

wings to get a bit of the action (Sinn Féin and the Greens) but, of

course, before they will be allowed to join the club they have to prove

that they will be ‘safe’, that they won’t try implementing any radical

policies. Anyone who thinks that’s an exaggeration has only to look at

the example of how well the Green party in Germany adapted to the

trappings of power.

Liars and Cheats?

Why is it that politicians ignore their mandate? Is it because they’re

all liars and cheats (yes I know a lot of them are!!) or is there

another reason? Let’s suspend reality for a moment and presume that in

the upcoming general election in the 26-Counties a majority government

is elected on a platform of imposing a 75% tax on the profits of

corporations, and re-investing this money in housing, education and

health. Do you think they would be allowed?? How would business and the

wealthy react??

We all know the answer to that particular question. Before the

newly-elected Minister for Finance would have time to even try out his

Ministerial Merc for size, the owners of business and capital would have

pressed the necessary buttons on their computers and transferred all

their wealth out of his nasty clutches, leading of course to immediate

total economic collapse and mass unemployment. Or if the new Minister

for Finance was smart enough to have pre-empted this and put in place

exchange controls to prevent the transfer of funds abroad, we would

instead see a total economic blockade and an international refusal to

trade with the Irish economy, with similar catastrophic economic

results.

This is exactly what happened in Britain in 1974 when a Labour

government was elected on a much more limited platform of reform. Even

the threat of these limited reforms led to international capital

effectively ‘ganging up’ on the British economy, and forcing a backdown

by the Labour government. For more on this see ‘Anarchist FAQ’ J.2.2,

www.anarchistfaq.org

The basic fact of the matter is that parliament is not allowed to be

democratic — capital will not invest in a country or an economy which

does not meet its approval. ‘Democratically elected’ governments can

therefore be very easily controlled. Even the threat of a withdrawal of

capital or a boycott of investment in the Irish currency would be quite

enough to whip any government which was thinking along radical lines

back into step. And, of course, as the globalisation of capital marches

ever onward, and as communication technology develops and improves, this

threat becomes more and more real. Not alone is the Irish economy, for

example, (on both sides of the border) more dependent than ever on

international investment but the task of removing that investment is

becoming easier all the time.

Concessions

That’s one reason, therefore to oppose parliamentary elections —

parliament is not democratic, no matter what political party is elected

to government their room for manoeuvre is extremely limited. Indeed it

could well be argued that the only times in which

parliaments/governments have conceded anything in terms of social or

economic rights have been when they have been left with no other option.

The introduction of the Welfare State by the 1945–51 British Labour

government is a good example of this. The Welfare State was not conceded

by the State at this time because of some paternalistic ‘nice guy’

feelings. It was conceded only because the State had no other option. In

short “..the dangers of not giving in outweigh[ed] the problems

associated with the reforms.” ‘Anarchist FAQ’ J.2.2 paragraph 21

Those reforms that have occurred, those concessions that have been given

by parliament have come about as a result of popular protest movements

demanding change, not as a result of any particular politicians being

elected. The problem is that when history is being taught, it is usually

taught from the ‘one great man’ perspective. Lincoln freed the slaves

because he was a nice guy! The welfare state was introduced because ir

was the right thing to do! Apartheid was abolished because De Klerk

realised that black people were okay! The ‘great man’ theory teaches us

that a particular politician/leader was good so he did a certain thing

but then the ‘bad man’ took over and did something else instead. This

leads people to believe that if they want change they should find a

‘great man’ and manoeuvre him into a position of power, and leave it to

him to sort things out!!

The reality is of course different. As I’ve said above, the welfare

state was only introduced because, even during a World War, there was a

huge number of strikes and a great deal of social unrest in Britain. The

ruling class were shit scared that if they didn’t concede something, the

working class would set about taking over completely. As it was put by

the Tory MP Quintin Hogg (again quoted in ‘Anarchist FAQ’) “If you don’t

give the people social reforms they are going to give you social

revolution”.

The point being made here is that while politicians and governments do

eventually announce the policy, what that policy is has less to do with

the people elected and more to do with the political and social

situation in the country.

Put them under pressure!

Anarchists therefore prefer to spend our time helping to create the

conditions outside of parliament that will force politicians and

governments to make concessions to the working class rather than wasting

our time running around trying to get politicians elected.

A good example of this — and one in which the Workers Solidarity

Movement was centrally involved — was the campaign against water charges

in Dublin and the subsequent election of Joe Higgins as Socialist Party

TD for Dublin West. For a detailed report on this campaign see ‘Red &

Black Revolution 3’ — on the web at

struggle.ws

When a by-election was called in the Dublin West constituency in 1996

following the death of Brian Lenihan TD (member of parliament), the

campaign against double tax water charges was in full flow. The campaign

which had been built up over the previous two years was the strongest

campaign of political resistance to any government measure for over two

decades. It was a campaign which had great popular support and

involvement.

Over 10,000 households were paid up members of the campaign, Council

attempts to disconnect water supply from non-payers had been thwarted by

community protest, their attempts to take people to court for

non-payment had served only to provide a focus for popular protest. In

short a campaign had been built which had rendered the charge

uncollectable and unenforceable, 2 years into the campaign over 50% of

households were refusing to pay the unjust charge and the campaign was

very much on winning ground.

It was in this context that the Dublin West by-election was called, and

that the Socialist Party (Militant Labour as they were called at the

time) saw the electoral road beckoning. When a conference of the

Federation of Dublin Anti-Water Charge Campaigns was called in January

1996, a proposal was put forward by Militant Labour that the campaign

should endorse Joe Higgins (chair of the Federation) as a by-election

candidate.

Anarchists present at the meeting argued strongly against this proposal.

We made the point that our opposition was not based on a distrust of Joe

or a belief that he would ‘sell-out’. Rather our principal argument was

that we would much prefer to see the charges defeated by the working

class organising on the streets to show their opposition. We argued that

people had to seize back control over their own lives and that this was

not done by electing some official to fight our corner. Empowerment

would come from defeating the combined forces of the state, the

government and the local authorities, by organising together and

fighting the imposition of the charge.

As I have already said, a campaign had already been built which had

rendered the charge uncollectable — a campaign which did not rely on any

great leaders but which relied instead on the resistance of ordinary

working class people. Our argument was that diverting the campaign into

voting for Joe Higgins — or anyone else — as TD was in fact an act of

disempowerment. The message the campaign should have been giving people

was — YOU have defeated the water charges. By standing side by side with

your neighbours and resisting Council attempts to intimidate us WE

together have forced the government and the politicians to back down.

Unfortunately, the anarchist voice was very much in the minority at that

conference and while our arguments were well received, the decision of

the meeting was to endorse Joe’s candidacy. And while he was not elected

in the by-election (he took a seat in the next year’s general election),

his vote certainly was high enough to send shock waves through the

political establishment. But the thing that was really terrifying from

the government’s perspective was the sight of ordinary working class

people refusing to bow down, standing shoulder to shoulder and

delivering clear and tangible evidence that Solidarity is indeed

Strength.

Who makes the decisions??

This is one of the key messages of anarchism, and one of the key reasons

why we oppose the electoral strategy. The very act of going into a

polling booth and putting a number or an X on a piece of paper is in

itself an act of disempowerment, it is an acceptance that someone else

has the right to make decisions on our behalf.

In every situation in which decisions have to be made, there are

basically two options — either the decision is made by the people

effected by it or it is made by someone else. Capitalist society being

what it is, usually our decisions are made for us by someone else. Being

an anarchist however means refusing the right of rulers to rule ( and no

matter how nice or benign they might be they would still be rulers). The

argument is simple — rather than choose who should make decisions for us

why don’t we use our energies to attempt to build a new society in which

we can make those decisions for ourselves? Instead elections are based

on the idea of getting someone else to act on our behalves? “far from

empowering people and giving them a sense of confidence and ability,

electioneering disempowers them by creating a ‘leader’ figure from which

changes are expected to flow.” ‘Anarchist FAQ’ J.2.2. paragraph 27

True democracy of course would be a different thing. As I wrote earlier

in the article, we only tend to see our politicians when elections are

called. Then they turn up on our doorsteps and listen to our ‘problems’

with such apparent concern that you would nearly believe that they care.

But that’s all part of the game as we know — what they really want to

know is ‘will you vote for me?’. If they can get a ‘yes’ to that

question all their apparent concern will have been worthwhile. The more

senior politicians — Blair, Ahern etc. — have this worked out to a fine

art. They portray the ‘man of the people’ image, shaking hands, slapping

backs, even bringing the US president into the local for a pint. But the

one thing these guys do to perfection is avoid having an actual

conversation with a real person.

Mandate — what mandate??

Because at the end of the day elected ‘representatives’ are not actually

representatives at all. Representation implies a mandate, a mandate

implies being bound to keep your promises and being recallable if you

don’t. So while, people might vote for a particular political

party/candidate on the basis of the policies in the manifesto, there is

absolutely no mechanism by which the voter can ensure that these

policies are carried out.

Take the following example. In the Irish (26-County) general election

campaign in 1982, all political parties said they were opposed to the

imposition of local service charges. Following the election, a Fine

Gael-Labour government was formed and within months passed a law

empowering county managers to impose a charge for services. While this

engendered much anger among working class communities throughout the

State, there was no mechanism by which those TDs who had broken their

mandate could be disciplined or recalled by the voters. They simply had

to wait for the next election. By the local elections in 1985, service

charges were a big issue. Fianna Fáil fought the election on an

anti-service charge ticket and won significant votes because of this.

Immediately after the elections however their councillors around the

country did a complete U-Turn and voted for charges. Yet again there was

no electoral remedy.

By the time of the 1987 general election, Fianna Fáil had given a

written commitment to the National Association of Tenants Organisations

that if returned to government they would scrap local charges. You would

have thought that this pledge would be taken with a pinch of salt but

yet again people voted for Fianna Fáil on this basis. They returned to

government, and service charges remained. In fact charges remained for

the next decade until the massive campaign of people power referred to

earlier in this article led to their abolition.

As an example of the problems associated with both a lack of a system of

recallability and a dependence on electing the ‘great man (or woman)’ to

sort out the problem, the service charges issue demonstrated quite

clearly the shortcomings of parliamentary democracy. In fact over that

ten-year period at least 3 TDs — Eamonn Gilmore and Kathleen Lynch

(Democratic Left now merged with the Labour Party) and Emmett Stagg

(Labour) — were elected to Dail Eireann on the basis of their opposition

to service charges and ended up in a government which was taking people

to court for refusing to pay them.

Direct Democracy

This demonstrates quite clearly what might be referred to as the

democratic deficit — the fact that parliamentary democracy does not come

anywhere close to real or direct democracy.

Direct democracy is advocated by anarchists as the alternative to

parliamentary democracy. Direct democracy is 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. Perhaps even more

importantly, direct democracy involves both local and workplace

assemblies at which all those effected by a decision would be given the

opportunity to contribute to the making of that decision. From local

level, the assemblies would federate upwards through the delegates but

at all times the power would be built from the bottom up rather than

from the top down. for more on direct democracy see WSM pamphlet

‘Parliament or Democracy?’ by Kevin Doyle, pages 39–46

Direct democracy is the political system with which anarchists aim to

replace parliamentary democracy, the system by which capitalism will be

crushed and replaced with a new free and equal society. And the tactic

by which this will be brought about is the use of direct action. Direct

action simply means that instead of looking to someone else —

politician, boss, bishop or anyone else — to act for you or to make

decisions for you, you act for yourself. Direct action in the current

circumstances means protest organised and controlled by ordinary working

class people aimed at bringing about change.

This can involve putting pressure on politicians to bring about a change

in policy, for example the way in which the non-payment campaign

described above forced the abolition of water charges. It can involve

bringing pressure to bear on companies as when groups of workers take

strike action for improved pay or conditions. Its central ingredient is

that it is “..any form of activity which people themselves decide upon

and organise themselves which is based on their own collective strength

and does not involve getting intermediaries to act for them.” ‘Anarchist

FAQ’ J.2 paragraph 9

Direct action is, on the one hand, a means of fighting back, of workers

asserting their freedom. It is also the most effective way of fighting

back. When there are no big leaders, there is nobody to buy off. Working

class history is littered with examples of movements which have

challenged the status quo, which have brought thousands and tens of

thousands of people on to the streets demanding their rights, but which

have been defeated because all that was necessary to defeat them was

either the imprisonment or the buying off of the leaders. With direct

democracy and direct action, this is not possible. If ownership of the

particular strike or campaign remains in the hands of everybody, it

isn’t possible for the establishment to ‘buy off’ everyone without

making some concessions.

Illusions

There are many on the left who would agree with the anarchist analysis

of elections and parliament. Indeed they would also agree with our

analysis of direct action as the way to bring about real and meaningful

change. They argue however that it is possible to combine both, that the

limits of electioneering can be overcome if it is combined with direct

action protests. ‘Vote for us but have no illusions in the system’ might

be the slogan they start off with. And that’s the important phrase —

‘start off with’ because ultimately this position must inevitably lead

to compromise.

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

position 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 current German Green Party, 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.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon, an anarchist who made a brief foray into

parliamentary politics in 1848, described his experience thus: “As soon

as I set foot in the parliamentary Sinai, I ceased to be in touch with

the masses; because I was absorbed by my legislative work, I entirely

lost sight of the current of events .. one must have lived in that

isolator which is called the National Assembly to realise how the men

who are most completely ignorant of the state of the country are almost

always those who represent it?.. fear of the people is the sickness of

all those who belong to authority; the people, for those in power, are

the enemy.” Quoted in ‘Demanding the Impossible’ by Peter Marshall, Page

244

Very soon, the party becomes dependent on both the media exposure and

the funding which comes with parliamentary representation. Almost

without noticing the more radical parts of the message are quietly

ditched, and by the time the party arrives at a position of power not

alone does it no longer advocate direct action but in fact such

activities are denounced. See ‘Anarchist FAQ’ J.2.6 for more on this

Another argument often put forward in favour of voting for a particular

candidate/party is the ‘single issue’ argument — supporting that

candidate/party because of their opposition to the death penalty,

support for abortion etc. The argument is put forward that if the

candidate, on election, implements this one policy it will be a major

advance. But again it’s impossible to insist on the mandate being

carried out. And what about all the other issues that this ‘single

issue’ candidate will be making decisions on if elected. In Ireland in

the past candidates elected on ‘single issues’ such as keeping a local

hospital open have ended up supporting the government on a whole host of

economic issues. One of the independents propping up the current

government — Tom Gildea — was elected on the ‘single issue’ of

television deflectors in Donegal.

New ideas

Ultimately anarchists support abstention from the electoral process

because, in the words of Emma Goldman, “participation in elections means

the transfer of one’s will and decisions to another, which is contrary

to the fundamental principles of anarchism.” “Anarchists and Elections”,

Vanguard III, June-July 1936, quoted in ‘Anarchist FAQ’ J.2.5, paragraph

1 Rather than sowing illusions in the current system, we seek to win

working class people to a whole new set of ideas, to a belief in our own

abilities and strength, to the prospect of building a new society based

on real grassroots democracy. This we do through involvement in the

day-to-day struggles of our class, at community and workplace level.

For the Workers Solidarity Movement this currently means in practice

involvement in our own trade unions at shopfloor level, in rank-and-file

trade union campaigns against so-called ‘social partnership’ and for

trade union democracy. It means involvement in the campaign against

double taxation service charges (Yes, the victory referred to earlier in

the article was short-lived — now they’re called refuse charges),

building and developing the fight against racism and helping to build

the growing anti-capitalist movement.

In all of these campaigns, in all of our political activity, it means

arguing for direct democracy, arguing for and implementing direct action

tactics. Because the means leads to the end, if our goal is a free and

democratic society, our tactics and our methods of organisation must at

all times be open and democratic.

This is our driving force and it is this desire for a free and

democratic society that leads us to reject participation in the

parliamentary sham.