💾 Archived View for oberdada.pollux.casa › gemlog › 2023-09-01_degrees_democracy.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 07:52:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-09-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonas Staal is a self-described propaganda artist. In his recent book he mentions the widespread assumption that democratic societies have no propaganda. Typically we would associate propaganda with authoritarian states and assume that it has nothing to do in a democracy where the press holds power to account and there is some reasonable level of transparency. Staal also refers to propaganda as the performance of power. Being in power means, among other things, being able to shape public perceptions.
The cognitive dissonance resulting from the myth that there is no propaganda in a democracy may be resolved by claiming that the propaganda we see all around us implies that, in fact, we do not live in a democracy. But there is another solution if we admit that democracy can be realised to varying degrees.
With a facile generalisation, some divide political systems into democracies versus authoritarian rule. No third option or gray zones inbetween are supposed to exist. This black and white thinking, taking the form of either you're with us or you're against us, is often heard coming from representatives of either of the two US parties, whose opinions are no more qualified than those of anyone else.
Direct democracy is not so much practiced at large scale as is representative democracy. Switzerland is known for its many referendums, and small organisations may involve their members in decision making, but at the national level we mostly have parties and their programs to vote for. Duopolies like those of the US and, perhaps to a lesser degree the UK, pose problems when both parties agree and third parties find it nearly impossible to enter the debate. Multi-party systems offer more spectacle, occasional changes of alliances, or small parties ending up in pivotal positions. Regardless of the system, confusing democracy with the free choice between more than one party every four or five years is to miss the point.
A famous study by Gilens & Page from 2014 showed that there is zero correlation between what the US population would prefer and which policies are actually adopted. However, if one looks at the affluent part of the population, their political preferences are positively correlated with the political decisions. Revolving doors between the political class and business (pantouflage, as it is charmingly called in French) explains why government is beholden to corporate interests. The desires of the general population can have no influence on politics because they lack the necessary capital. In a system of one dollar one vote, democracy diminishes with increasing wealth inequality.
On the international level there are hegemonic power relations, at present predominantly between the US Empire and its allied or subdued states. The emergence of BRICS+ and the dwindling status of the dollar in international trade is already changing the power balance towards a multipolar setting. Formally, each nation is supposed to have sovereignty, which means that the people should be able to decide on matters concerning their country without foreign interference. In practice, the colonialism of quite a few European nations and, to an even greater extent, the US Empire, have effectively put a stop on any democratic tendencies that have gone against the hegemonic interests.
There is a long history of coups, election interference, colour revolutions, media manipulation, and economic hitmen (John Perkins' is very readable account), along with some 800 military bases and an expanding Nato to project US power in all corners of the world. Some instead fear Russian ambitions of creating their own empire, as well as China's economic and diplomatic expansion, which are used as arguments for extending Nato. I think a credible case can be made that Nato itself is more destabilising than it is a force for peace.
Sweden used to be neutral, at least on paper, although it always had close relations with the US and carried a suspicion of the Soviet Union. In the 1980's there was a referendum about the future of nuclear energy with three alternatives: phasing it out rapidly, slowly, or keep developing it. Then there was a referendum about another highly consequential decision, whether to join the EU or not. As Eleanor Goldfield points out in a recent article, there was a lively debate about the advantages and disadvantages of joining the European Union. People studied the question, they educated themselves and voted. Not so with the hurried application for Nato membership, which is perhaps of even greater consequence. With it comes an obligation to increase military spending to two percent, and young Swedish recruits may get to enjoy meaningless missions in foreign countries, only to be sent home traumatised or in a coffin. The increased military spending has to be financed by cutting expenditures on education and health care (already privatised to a large extent) and the minuscule funding of culture there still is.
Goldfield rightly describes the positive image the average Swedish citizen has of the US. The occasional (well, daily) mass shootings, the absurdity of anti abortion legislation, and a few other egregious details of the Exceptional Nation does raise an eyebrow, but still, the image is largely positive. Maybe it is because the mass media, which are much more trusted in Scandinavia than in the US, tend to gloss over or plainly forget the worst abuses of the US. Moreover, sometimes Sweden is complicit, as they were in their dealings with Julian Assange.
Some decisions are too important for democracy. That must have been the reason for the haste with joining Nato without asking the people's permission. The public opinion was very much in favour of joining, we have to admit, but a serious debate with all the consequences laid on the table and thoroughly analysed might have swayed the opinion back to a more sceptical attitude. Now Sweden will need a serious PR campaign to convince its people that it still is a democracy.
Eleanor Goldfield: How Swedish Love for the US Turned Deadly.