Vote... and be damned.
Posted by: MikeP in Uncategorised on
Jul 15, 2008
An election, and I’m using the term purely because this is how it has generally been referred to, has just been held in Zimbabwe. Of course it wasn’t really an election, as there was only one candidate, and in order to make sure that nobody thought of not voting for him, he made sure that people were beaten into submission. Just in case that weren’t enough, he made it clear that anyone who, after the election, was thought not to have voted for him, would suffer. After his uncontested win, of which I’m sure Robert Gabriel Mugabe must be very proud, he encouraged his thugs to beat up anyone who did not vote for him, an act which can only be interpreted as vindictive and spiteful, particularly given that children as young as three were brutalised.
The country has been on a downward spiral since 1981, when Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, the beautiful country I once had the privilege of living in, became Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe (via the transitional ‘Zimbabwe Rhodesia’ headed up by Abel Muzorewa). Mugabe became president, to the rejoicing of many people, including whites, who thought he would oversee a peaceful and bloodless transition to majority rule. He promised a peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious future for all Zimbabweans, regardless of race or creed. Promises, promises …..!
28 years later we all know the evolution. The man is a power crazed megalomaniac, responsible for the massacre of thousands of Matabele and of opposition supporters, abusing his position in every way possible. He launched murderous campaigns such as Murabatsvina ‘clean out the trash’, in which 300,000 black Africans were made homeless and lost their possessions and savings. He seized farms from families who had owned them for generations, making more black Africans homeless and jobless and he oversaw a ruinous deterioration in the economy with inflation and exchange rate statistics reaching into the realms of fantasy, with 165,000% inflation, perhaps something for the Guinness Book of Records.
Since ‘winning’ this farcical election, the non-elected and self-styled President of Zimbabwe has continued with his ruinous and murderous policies, regardless of any promises that he may have made.
In our Western democracies, there is an electoral process whereby the franchised electorate can vote for any candidate or party they wish. Within certain constraints, anyone can create a party and stand for election, hence for example the UK’s ‘Monster Raving Loony Party’ to mention just one of the non mainstream parties that have existed over the years.
Checks and balances ensure that voting is fair and not rigged. Politicians campaign, making promises in order to attract votes, the winner is then duly elected as President or Prime Minister as the case may be, moves into 10 Downing Street, or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC (that’s the White House), or the Elysee Palace …… and proceeds to do more or less what he or she sees fit, regardless of any prior promises made to the gullible electorate.
In South Africa, the ANC was elected to power by promising wealth, jobs, flashy cars and houses with sparkling swimming pools to the majority, the blacks who were supposedly oppressed under the Apartheid regime. As we know, for many this dream came to fruition but for the huge majority living standards, by whatever measure one wishes to use, have declined, but of course they now have ‘democracy’ so everyone must be happy.
The majority of the population of the UK and the US, both nominally democratic countries, apparently voted for George Bush and Tony Blair, who were arguably the least popular leaders either country has ever been saddled with. These are leaders who, if one believes popular opinion, led their respective countries into an illegal war. They were democratically elected leaders though, so who are we to criticise.
Democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Given the above definitions, can any of our so-called democracies really be considered fit this description?
Now here’s where I get to the point of this blog entry and pull the threads together.
For many years I have harboured a conscientious objection to voting for anyone or anything remotely related to politics, because I believe it is a farce and a charade.
Can anyone convince me that there is any point in voting in a so-called democracy?
If democracy as defined above results in leaders such as Bush and Blair and allows them to subsequently act as they please, and I am not implying that they are the worst democratically elected leaders, but simply the best known, then perhaps Robert Mugabe’s Satanic democracy, which is transparent, simple, brutal, and effective, is a damn sight more honest.
The country has been on a downward spiral since 1981, when Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, the beautiful country I once had the privilege of living in, became Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe (via the transitional ‘Zimbabwe Rhodesia’ headed up by Abel Muzorewa). Mugabe became president, to the rejoicing of many people, including whites, who thought he would oversee a peaceful and bloodless transition to majority rule. He promised a peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious future for all Zimbabweans, regardless of race or creed. Promises, promises …..!
28 years later we all know the evolution. The man is a power crazed megalomaniac, responsible for the massacre of thousands of Matabele and of opposition supporters, abusing his position in every way possible. He launched murderous campaigns such as Murabatsvina ‘clean out the trash’, in which 300,000 black Africans were made homeless and lost their possessions and savings. He seized farms from families who had owned them for generations, making more black Africans homeless and jobless and he oversaw a ruinous deterioration in the economy with inflation and exchange rate statistics reaching into the realms of fantasy, with 165,000% inflation, perhaps something for the Guinness Book of Records.
Since ‘winning’ this farcical election, the non-elected and self-styled President of Zimbabwe has continued with his ruinous and murderous policies, regardless of any promises that he may have made.
In our Western democracies, there is an electoral process whereby the franchised electorate can vote for any candidate or party they wish. Within certain constraints, anyone can create a party and stand for election, hence for example the UK’s ‘Monster Raving Loony Party’ to mention just one of the non mainstream parties that have existed over the years.
Checks and balances ensure that voting is fair and not rigged. Politicians campaign, making promises in order to attract votes, the winner is then duly elected as President or Prime Minister as the case may be, moves into 10 Downing Street, or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC (that’s the White House), or the Elysee Palace …… and proceeds to do more or less what he or she sees fit, regardless of any prior promises made to the gullible electorate.
In South Africa, the ANC was elected to power by promising wealth, jobs, flashy cars and houses with sparkling swimming pools to the majority, the blacks who were supposedly oppressed under the Apartheid regime. As we know, for many this dream came to fruition but for the huge majority living standards, by whatever measure one wishes to use, have declined, but of course they now have ‘democracy’ so everyone must be happy.
The majority of the population of the UK and the US, both nominally democratic countries, apparently voted for George Bush and Tony Blair, who were arguably the least popular leaders either country has ever been saddled with. These are leaders who, if one believes popular opinion, led their respective countries into an illegal war. They were democratically elected leaders though, so who are we to criticise.
Democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Given the above definitions, can any of our so-called democracies really be considered fit this description?
Now here’s where I get to the point of this blog entry and pull the threads together.
For many years I have harboured a conscientious objection to voting for anyone or anything remotely related to politics, because I believe it is a farce and a charade.
Can anyone convince me that there is any point in voting in a so-called democracy?
If democracy as defined above results in leaders such as Bush and Blair and allows them to subsequently act as they please, and I am not implying that they are the worst democratically elected leaders, but simply the best known, then perhaps Robert Mugabe’s Satanic democracy, which is transparent, simple, brutal, and effective, is a damn sight more honest.
Comments
(7)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
...
written by Mike Meade , 17 July 2008
written by Mike Meade , 17 July 2008
...
written by Ghost Girl , 17 July 2008
written by Ghost Girl , 17 July 2008
"Has any candidate ever not promised to "eliminate crime" or "make working families better off"? They probably mean it but when they are in power they find that things inside aren't quite as easy as they seemed from the outside. Good intention is not always transmutable into effective action."
Have either of you ever read the "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" books, written by Jonathan Lynn, based on the popular BBC TV series of the same names?
These were satirical, fictional accounts of a mostly well-meaning MP (who later became PM) trying to get to grips with running the country and finding himself thwarted at every turn. The author and collaborators were themselves former Civil Servants who had firsthand experience of their subject. The TV show and books of were not only very funny and cleverly-written, but apparently also very accurate in terms of governmental decision-making and the internal workings of the Civil Service.
They illustrate Mike Meade's point (quoted above) perfectly. I would highly recommend them - the books, more than the show, which is probably a bit dated now. I think I've got the books knocking about somewhere. If either of you would like to borrow them, let me know and we'll work something out.
Have either of you ever read the "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" books, written by Jonathan Lynn, based on the popular BBC TV series of the same names?
These were satirical, fictional accounts of a mostly well-meaning MP (who later became PM) trying to get to grips with running the country and finding himself thwarted at every turn. The author and collaborators were themselves former Civil Servants who had firsthand experience of their subject. The TV show and books of were not only very funny and cleverly-written, but apparently also very accurate in terms of governmental decision-making and the internal workings of the Civil Service.
They illustrate Mike Meade's point (quoted above) perfectly. I would highly recommend them - the books, more than the show, which is probably a bit dated now. I think I've got the books knocking about somewhere. If either of you would like to borrow them, let me know and we'll work something out.
...
written by Ghost Girl , 17 July 2008
written by Ghost Girl , 17 July 2008
OK, the show too, then (the script, casting and acting was brilliant, wasn't it?).
...
written by HerrodK , 19 July 2008
written by HerrodK , 19 July 2008
Whether we vote or not, we get the politicians we deserve. When a politician is open and honest about his intentions and capabilities he gets criticized at best and unelected at worst.
Any politician who would be outright and honest about what he REALLY thought he could accomplish for his country wouldn't get many votes. The fact is that we all want to hear the hype rather than cold reality - so hype is what they promise and reality is all they can deliver.
Any politician who would be outright and honest about what he REALLY thought he could accomplish for his country wouldn't get many votes. The fact is that we all want to hear the hype rather than cold reality - so hype is what they promise and reality is all they can deliver.
...
written by Mike P , 21 July 2008
written by Mike P , 21 July 2008
Zimbabwe is not a good example. Fair enough, I used the most extreme current example to illustrate my point, as it's one close to my heart. I may have overstepped the mark in doing so, but my objective was to elicit some comment.
The fact remains though that both the word and the concept of democracy are grossly overused, and whilst Zimbabwe's so-called democracy clearly isn't one, there are others not far behind, so it's only a matter of the scale of the said abuse.
MikeM has said we should vote if only to preserve the right to do so, but my view, and clearly we won't agree on this, is that the right has no value, so why maintain it.
Theoretically politicians can be voted out of power but it seems that when this does happen all we get is more of the same, that's to say unfulfilled promises from the 'other' lot.
Am I being overly cynical? Probably, yes, but having lived in dictatorships and democracies, I see very little difference other than that in the dictatorships people who dissented had mysterious brake failures, fell out of fifth floor windows, or slipped on the soap in the shower and that was the end of them. In the Western democracies it's all a little more subtle.
Ghost Girl : I am familiar with the shows you mentioned, thanks for the kind offer, but like many classic British comedy series, they never really did much for me!
The fact remains though that both the word and the concept of democracy are grossly overused, and whilst Zimbabwe's so-called democracy clearly isn't one, there are others not far behind, so it's only a matter of the scale of the said abuse.
MikeM has said we should vote if only to preserve the right to do so, but my view, and clearly we won't agree on this, is that the right has no value, so why maintain it.
Theoretically politicians can be voted out of power but it seems that when this does happen all we get is more of the same, that's to say unfulfilled promises from the 'other' lot.
Am I being overly cynical? Probably, yes, but having lived in dictatorships and democracies, I see very little difference other than that in the dictatorships people who dissented had mysterious brake failures, fell out of fifth floor windows, or slipped on the soap in the shower and that was the end of them. In the Western democracies it's all a little more subtle.
Ghost Girl : I am familiar with the shows you mentioned, thanks for the kind offer, but like many classic British comedy series, they never really did much for me!
...
written by Mike Meade , 21 July 2008
written by Mike Meade , 21 July 2008
"I see very little difference other than that in the dictatorships people who dissented had mysterious brake failures, fell out of fifth floor windows, or .... In the Western democracies it's all a little more subtle."
C'mon, you mean a LOT more subtle.
What you're saying is that we should relinquish voting rights because we never really get what we want when we do vote.
Firstly, we don't all want the same thing. Some are content with the system they get. But absolutely no one (outside his few cronies) can be content with a Mugabe-like electionless system.
Secondly, I think democracy has to be looked at as the lesser of several evils. Voting is a way to cut some of the losses we'd have under dictatorship.
Thirdly, the democratic system's far from perfect, but even if the politicians kept their promises, there would still be many dissatisfied voters because they voted the other way.
Isn't there a song "You don't always get what you want"? Life's like that. It'll never be perfect but it's less imperfect under democracy than under dictatorship.
C'mon, you mean a LOT more subtle.
What you're saying is that we should relinquish voting rights because we never really get what we want when we do vote.
Firstly, we don't all want the same thing. Some are content with the system they get. But absolutely no one (outside his few cronies) can be content with a Mugabe-like electionless system.
Secondly, I think democracy has to be looked at as the lesser of several evils. Voting is a way to cut some of the losses we'd have under dictatorship.
Thirdly, the democratic system's far from perfect, but even if the politicians kept their promises, there would still be many dissatisfied voters because they voted the other way.
Isn't there a song "You don't always get what you want"? Life's like that. It'll never be perfect but it's less imperfect under democracy than under dictatorship.
Show/Hide comment form
I'm not with you on this one.
Zimbabwe is not a good example. In its present state it is not a democracy and Mugabe is an unelected dictator as things stand. No one anywhere can be mistaken about that even though Thabo Mbeki is showing regrettable weakness in his reluctance to condemn outright his neighbour. Not to mention the Chinese and Russians.
The "elections" in Zimbabwe were a farce as you say. Just because they were called elections doesn't mean that's what they were. This is reminiscent of countries that feel the need to call themselves "Democratic Republic of..." but are neither democratic nor republics. They are dictatorships and no one is seriously fooled by this deceptive use of vocabulary.
You say : "Can anyone convince me that there is any point in voting in a so-called democracy?"
I would say that you don't sound very open to being convinced, but also say that in "normal" democratic countries (unlike Zimbabwe) it is well worthwhile exercising the right to vote if only to see that right preserved. In most democracies, politicians know that they can be voted out of power and privilege if their policies in office do not please the majority of voters.
Politicians can be removed. That is the power of the vote and it's a power worth conserving, respecting and even honouring.
Electoral promises are as easy as ads for soap powder. You can promise to remove all the stains and you can even think you're capable of it but when you're in the washer trying to get the job done you can easily run across considerations you never expected. They get in the way of intention.
Has any candidate ever not promised to "eliminate crime" or "make working families better off"? They probably mean it but when they are in power they find that things inside aren't quite as easy as they seemed from the outside. Good intention is not always transmutable into effective action.
The first responsibility of a politician is to become elected. Without that, he is no one and can do nothing. There is, however, something to be said for the British system of a shadow cabinet where opposition parties can submit what they would do in real-life situations as they happen. Vague promises about vague issues won't do there; only real propositions are credible.
No elected official will or can do everything he promises but the vote is the only tool true democracies have to express the approval or disapproval of the electorate.
To renounce that tool is a cop-out.
"I don't like the game so I'm taking my ball back" is not an attitude that can ever be effective. If suffragettes had given up that easily they wouldn't have gained the right to vote for women. If black Americans had taken that attitude they'd still be riding in the back of the bus instead of sitting on the Supreme Court or running for president.
"Freedom of choice" might seem like an oxymoron to sceptics, but it is this relatively recent principle that has drawn most middle-class minions out of serfdom into meaningful modern lives. It was only a few generations ago that the phrase meant nothing. People like me (and perhaps you) lived by the whims of unelected lords, royals and autocrats. Without the vote we'd still be wiping their bottoms.
Historically, "master of the royal stool" was a prized occupation because it gave privileged access to the king. I'll take the power of the vote over the power of the king's excrement any day.
MikeM