_-_Wheat_Field_with_Crows_(1890).jpg)
130414
This
discussion has been showing up in several conversations. So I decided to
clarify my thoughts about it and simultaneously share them here. Here we go:
Why demanding elections in Portugal is a bad idea.
Premise
1. There are no real parliamentary alternatives to the existing government and
therefore elections would stabilize the political turmoil.[1]
The
polls do not show a drastic change in the political choices of the voters.
Although many people disagree with the current policies, there isn't any
parliamentary political party which has been gaining the support of the masses.
It
is a typical bourgeois strategy to bring up the election option whenever there
is significant dissent among the population. They would say “Oh, you have a
problem? Okay, here you are, let's make an election.” to calm down the protests
and reestablish their status-quo. Then, getting reelected, they would
cheerfully declare “You see? The protesters are the marginals of the society.
Democracy has spoken. The nation wants us.” Of course they would do this only
in conditions where they knew that their power would not be challenged.
According to recent polls, this is exactly the situation in Portugal. It is
therefore unreasonable for the opposition groups to call for elections. This
would simply strengthen the hand of the bourgeoisie.
It
is now time to challenge the ruling class as a whole and the social structure
with which it rules. It is time to challenge the existence of bourgeois organizations.
Premise
2. Portuguese elections are not legitimate, and social movements should not
legitimize the bourgeois representative system.
Voters
turn-out in Portuguese general elections are surprisingly low. In the last
elections the voter turn-out was 58%. Here are the actual results:
PSD 22%
PS 16%
CDS-PP 7%
CDU 5%
BE 3%
This
deserves emphasis. No nos representan! And you don't have to be a
radical advocate of direct democracy to say this. They don't represent us even
in bourgeois standards.
The
electoral system is happily not functioning anymore. Happily, because we have a
social counterweight:
Hundreds
of thousands march all around the country. 10% of the population is protesting
against Troika policies.[2]
And here we are, instead of questioning whether this should be considered a
“revolutionary situation” or not, proposing elections?!
One
million proletarians are on the street; it is an amorphous crowd, searching for
something else[3]. And
what will the opposition do? Send them back home? An opposition whose lack of
imagination restricts it to the existing political structure has a name, it is
called social democrat. Let us rather struggle for imagination!
It
is no time to legitimize the bourgeois representative system. What we should do
instead is to mobilize the society, denounce elections and its results, and
seek for revolutionary creativity.
In
short, I challenge the advocates of the “eleições já”: Do you consider the
bourgeois representative democracy legitimate? Do you think that the society
considers it legitimate? When would you be convinced that the population does not consider it legitimate? And by this
last one, I am asking for realistic qualitative and quantitative measures, not
for some cheap rhetoric. (I wonder what Lenin would do if he saw us demanding
elections today.)
Conclusion.
Demanding elections in Portugal is a bad political choice.
The
elections are not a relevant political tool for us in today's Portugal. They
can only serve for the soothing of the social anger and the reestablishment of
the status-quo. Under any revolutionary standards, a hypothetical election
campaign today should consist of boycotting the elections and fighting for a structural alternative.
Supporting
argument. Organizations that do not have organic affiliations with
parliamentary parties should not demand elections but resignations.
In
this section, I want to focus on why it is in general incorrect for a
non-affiliated social movement to call for elections.
Social
movements fight for social change, independent of who is in the government. The
government policies only shape their strategy and actions.
In
this context, they sometimes demand the resignation of certain politicians, or
even the resignation of the government. Furthermore, they may support one or
more candidates in terms of their programmatic support for the social
movements' demands. These are all within the context of a campaign strategy.
But
demanding elections?
Why
would a social movement demand elections?
I
want to emphasize that there is an essential difference between calling for the
resignation of the government and demanding elections. One demands elections if
and only if one has an electoral alternative to campaign for. A social movement
making politics for the benefit of a political party is an example of what is
generally called embedded politics.[4]
The
role of a social movement is to move and to let move. The alternative
that a social movement proposes to the society is itself.
How
it looks like: Are you in favor of LGBT rights? Vote for the right party. Are
you unemployed? Vote for the right party. Are you angry about the privatization
of water services? Vote for the right party. etc.
How
it should be: Are you in favor of LGBT rights? Join our LGBT organization. Are
you unemployed? Join the movement of the unemployed. Are you angry about the
privatization of water services? Take part in the campaign against the
privatization. etc.
Demanding
elections (and demanding it já for that matter) is another thing. If
there is an election, an organization might choose to campaign about it.
But we should not campaign for it.
Here
are some questions for which I can't see the answers: What is the political
meaning of demanding elections in addition to resignation of the government?
Which role do elections play in the strategy of your organization? What do they
serve for?
Refutation
of a counterargument. Demanding elections in Portugal is a bad tactical choice.
There
is one counterargument that deserves mentioning as it is compatible with the political
assumptions of this text. It agrees that demanding elections is a bad political
choice, but it claims that elections are good as a tactical choice. Here
is how it goes:
An
upcoming election would yield a PS-led government, who would not challenge the
capitalist system and therefore would have to play with the rules. This would
continue the austerity measures, thereby creating distrust among the population
for the social democrats, and resulting in the elimination of all capitalist
options and the radicalization of the society.
This
argument is valid yet hilariously weak. It not only makes the slippery slope fallacy
but also is not supported by evidence.
In
Turkish, there is a proverb: If my aunt had a beard, she would be my uncle. It
more or less means that if you ask for too many things at the same time, you
would end up having something completely different.[5]
Let
us analyze the argument carefully.
Premise
1. An upcoming election would yield a
PS-led government.
I
see very little evidence for this. Recent polls show that PS increased its
votes just a bit. So, a government which is led by PS would be a very weak
government.
But
for the sake of argument, let us assume this true.
Premise
2. A PS-led government would not challenge the capitalist system and would
continue the austerity measures.
I
agree with this premise.
Premise
3. Continuing austerity measures would create distrust among the population for
the social democrats.
I
see no evidence for this. I cannot come up with historical evidence that could
be applied to the Portuguese case. I also cannot come up with any qualitative
or quantitative parameter that would support this premise.
PS
made many bad things for the society and it still has some support. The reason
is that a social democrat party is by definition the expert of
rationalizing all the evils it does (as opposed to the liberal party, who is
never apologetic about its acts[6]).
I see no reason why they would fail in this particular case.
In
addition to that, recalling my response to Premise 1, a PS government would be
a weak government. It would clearly need a coalition.
The
best case scenario is that they are supported by right-wing and therefore
scapegoat the right-wing for all their evil.
The
worst case scenario is they are supported by left-wing and therefore take the
left-wing with them down the hill. As PS has more propaganda power, it would
dominate the discussions, thereby creating a non-cooperative image for the
left-wing.
Premise
4. Distrust among the population against social democrats would result in the
elimination of all capitalist options.
This
is not only not supported by evidence but also refuted by it.
There
are several capitalist options at hand: The weaker trend is the neo-Nazi
nonsense, and I will not increase their citation number here. But there is an
awkwardly significant monarchical trend: recall the flags in the first Que
Se Lixe A Troika demonstrations. Furthermore, there is a ridiculously naïve
but extremely dangerous Salazarist trend gaining support among the population,
which has already become visible to the naked eye.
I
want to emphasize that these are capitalist options, and that they exist
as real options.
Premise
5. Elimination of the capitalist options
radicalizes the society.
I
don't see evidence for this. On the contrary, we see signs of hopelessness and
submission. Elimination of the capitalist options may as well result in a
society that gives up the search for options. And I believe it is more
probable in given subjective conditions.
What we should do
instead is to radicalize and politicize the society by our own means, instead
of praying for the objective conditions to do it.
[1] Underlying assumption: This premise is based on the assumption that politics should
always be revolutionary politics. Bourgeois parties exist today, as the Nazi
party existed in Third Reich. Their legitimacy today should have no meaning for
us. Their existence and their so-called right to expression is against human
dignity. Freedom to elect a bourgeois party for a proletarian is like a slave's
freedom to choose slavery in Roman Empire. (For further reading, see “the happy
slave paradox”.)
[2] By the way, this might possibly be a world
record, not counting the amazingly inspiring Cuban 1st of May celebrations.
[3] perhaps for another world, as the
now-not-so-trendy slogan goes
[4] I do not in any way claim that affiliated
social movements are bad. I think they should exist, and I think their
discourse is much more honest than many other organizations. This is why the
statement of this argument is carefully stated. And this is why this item is a supporting
argument instead of being part of the original argument.
[5] The English proverb is “If frogs had wheels they wouldn’t bump
their botts.” I think a better translation is “If ifs and ands were pots and
pans there’d be no work for tinkers’ hands.”
[6] For further reading, see Michael Moore's
essays on the Clinton administration.
