As the General
Election approaches, I would like to present my thoughts on the subject in a quite
specific way – not by endorsing either party or enthusiastically urging people
(especially young people) to vote for
whomever they want, but to consider whether one should or should not vote in
elections.
First of all,
one begins by asking the simple question: ‘How am I to make a difference?’ The
simple answer is – take part in politics. The most general way in which
citizens do this in a democracy, is by voting in general and local elections (and
presidential elections elsewhere). Thus we – so we are told – decide what will
become of our lives in the next 4-5 years. ‘Britain decides’ – we hear here and
there as the vote looms. If we do, we decide for those who do not take part in elections
too.
Suppose I vote.
When I cast my ballot, I effectively endorse the system in toto. I endorse its very structure – I take part in the general
will (Rousseau) and give in to it. When people say that only those who voted
can criticise the ones elected, they are wrong: a vote for Labour is a vote for
the Tories as well, since you agree your local Labour MP will take his or her
seat in the House of Commons made up of representatives of all parties, the
Tories included. This in itself is not yet enough to panic. After all, if we
agree to take part in the democratic process, we must endorse it as a whole never
mind the consequences that we ourselves might be opposed to profoundly. This is
the basic rule of modern democracy.
But what if I
see that my vote does not anyhow affect the system itself, since most questions
– indeed, the most fundamental ones – are usually agreed upon by all parties taking part. Here we counter
what theorists call the post-political
condition. Simply put, it means politics lose their political essence. What is
left is administration of citizens via
techniques of governmentality (Michel Foucault’s term). So, we see decision-making
turn from a political thing to simple calculation, best done by computers and
not humans; ideas and metaphysical concepts give way to efficiency and
pragmatism that leave no place for human action, that, according to Hannah
Arendt, is essential to politics.
Here two strategies
emerge. Firstly, if I refuse to vote, not wishing to endorse the system, it may
be because I wish for certain reforms, even if limited – say, changes to the
voting system. Or maybe I wish the actors in the political game would again get political. I might wait for a better
day, when politicians would come up with new ideas and allow me to choose
between qualitatively – not quantitatively – differing visions for our future. Rosa
Luxemburg once said that back in the day clashes between different ideas and
classes were honest. If it was about ‘Socialism vs. Capitalism’, she argued, it
would be a clear choice. This is what I might want as well – a clear choice. However,
I see this choice as anyway within the limits of the system.
Secondly, I
might want to abolish of the system itself. That is, I can reject elections if
I see voting is essentially flawed and the system makes no change possible at
all. Thus, I reject the system altogether. Party politics are illusory and only
hide the basic unity of the system. Guy Debord thought the voting system is conservative, whilst capitalism is constantly revolutionising
itself. If I realise that proposed amendments that would supposedly improve the
living conditions of the poor and vulnerable, are merely like rearranging the
seats on the Titanic, my only answer is not voting.
So, the former
reason for abstaining is based on a belief in the system but with a wish for certain
changes, that would reinvigorate it (or a return to basics), while the latter means
rejecting the system as the root of all problems which different parties
promise to solve.
Refusing to take
part in elections is not uncommon today and is proposed by well-known theorists
like Slavoj Žižek or Alain Badiou and in the past has been advocated by a wide array of
critics of representative democracy and government. They note the fact that
elections do not actually change anything, and not simply because particular
people are not suited to govern, but because of the very nature of the system.
It cannot be changed piecemeal, only rejected as a whole, they argue.
The ones who
argue against voting from the perspective of bettering the system without getting
rid of it are often the ones endorsing ‘political’ movements, or so-called
populists. They see such forces as marking a return to genuine politics after what
Francis Fukuyama called ‘the end of History’. When a new movement/party emerges
or people like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn get into the spotlight, those wishing
a return to politics feel like they are
actually witnessing it. So, they go back to voting and support new populist
mass movements. A Trump or a Marine Le Pen echoes their sentiment of rejecting
the Establishment. Tired of patronizing administrators, people embrace a new
kind of politics manifestly at odds with the status quo. As these supposed radicals constantly reminds us of
this, even if they do not in principle oppose the system, the fact that they receive
massive support, speaks volumes about how deeply people are fed up with post-politics.
So, if I decide
not to vote, it’s perhaps because: 1) I feel it is meaningless, because things
never change; 2) I reject all participants of the election and wish for better
politicians. In the latter case, it is easy to see what I should do – engage
with the party I most support and do my best that they change for the better,
or start my own one. This requires patience and an ability to compromise, to
talk to people, to engage in debate. However, it also means I can hope to see some
change. In the former case, I am left unsure what to do – if I reject the
system, I am side-lined and feel out of sync with the world (election coverage
on TV, but I ‘don’t care’); I simply live my life with no hope for change or dreaming
one day it will come, but perhaps not in my lifetime.
Before I move on
to discussing the issues with not voting, maybe I ought to consider voting,
after all.
The main reason
for voting is usually a belief that at least this time we all have a duty to ensure someone with a horrendous
agenda does not get elected. That is, I might decide to vote because I see a
rise to power of some people, who threaten something much bigger than the status quo. After all, it is about avoiding
the worst case scenario. Flawed Labour seems a more reasonable choice than five
more years of Tory domination. And, you may ask, should not I help to stop a
Trump or a Le Pen from government? I might detest Clinton, as did a significant
part of her voters, but I might endorse her to save us all from supposed fascism.
Here we see that if I am unsure about voting, what motivates me to go to the
polling station is not a new-found love for Labour or for Clinton but fear of
impeding terror and more suffering. To prevent the worst I choose the lesser
evil.
There are
obvious ways of criticising this benevolent wish. The system finds pleasure at
portraying its enemies as a threat to its very essence and to the stability of our
everyday life. If the Establishment is out of ideas, it can always employ fear.
Coaxed out of my place on Election Day, I cast my ballot for people I utterly
detest because I am horrified by a perspective of Trump or the Front National.
The status quo makes me endorse it by
making up spectacular encounters between supposed polar opposites.
So if this last
try to prove I need to vote proved unconvincing at best, what now? It is clear
that the choice between two evils is what is evil about elections. However, two
counter-arguments can be presented against abstaining.
First, what kind
of system does such a position entail? If we follow the unrepentant Maoist
Badiou, it would be communism which is
not only unlikely, but disturbingly vague – as if Marx’s formulation wasn’t! If
we follow Debord, it would be council communism. If we follow anarchists,
obviously we get various forms of self-governance. At best, these ideas are vague. At worst, a distorted
ideology might lead to totalitarianism or a more low-key dictatorship. Again,
we return to the concept of the lesser evil: the choice between the status quo and Stalin’s Russia or Pol
Pot’s Cambodia is a no-brainer. Like those voting for the Establishment’s
candidate, we could say that better we elect him or her and relentlessly fight
them for the next four or five years than lapse into fascism.
Second, what
effect does not voting actually have on our living conditions? That is, if I do
not vote, what will change? While I
may continue to occasionally entertain dreams about the coming victory of communism
or anarchism, I will be forced to carry on with my life, to use social services
kindly provided by the system and nothing will change for the better, since at
best I could speak at meetings or write essays like the one you are currently
reading. As Timothy B. Lee argues: “<…> “principled” non-voters have the luxury of not
participating in the political process because millions of others are doing the
hard work of making democracy work <…>.”
How to respond
to such arguments? Well, obviously no one would like to choose outward
dictatorship in the stead of democracy, however flawed, but if at the end of
the day the two are less different than we think (as noted by Giorgio Agamben),
this choice is obfuscating the innate unity of the Spectacle, to use Debord’s
term. Then again, if the system can impose itself on us because it exists, this
does not mean it is equal to life itself. As for the supposed laziness of the
apathetic voter, who does not want to take part anymore, again, we fall prey to
false choices because we still believe in capitalist virtues and we want to see
anti-capitalism act in a capitalist way and we want to see some ‘action’ to
entertain ourselves, but actions in the context of this system only help it thrive
as we waste energy not when we think, but when we take up various spectacular
forms of action, taking part in a political circus of colourful protests,
contemporary art performances or being Social Justice Warriors – it all is less
that futile – it is detrimental to the struggle against capitalism.
Nevertheless, I admit it is worth questioning whether your not voting is
helpful.
