The Great Election Myth

There have only been two stories in the news this week. The lockdown in England (this despite the fact that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were already in lockdown) and the US Presidential election. It’s hard not to get drawn into caring who ends up as President and not just because the American President is one of the most powerful men in the World. More than this though the President is chosen by the votes of almost 140 million Americans. At the same time as the Americans were voting to make Joe Biden / Donald Trump* (delete as applicable) their President they were also choosing members of the Senate and House. It is a display of democracy in action. But, and here’s the rub, whoever is President much about America will remain the same.

In a democratic decision with a slightly smaller electorate if, like me, you are still a member of the Labour Party you should have received your online ballot form for the National Executive Committee (NEC) elections recently. It’s a secret ballot so I’m not supposed to tell you that I voted for 9 left-wing candidates including the Momentum/Grassroots Voice slate. I would like to explain to you exactly how the single transferable vote (STV) system actually works when you have multiple votes. But, it is fairly complex and technical and, hey, we have lives to live. Suffice to say that for all the energy expended by the left (and possibly the right too) that the end result is likely to be that Labour’s right will retain their narrow majority.

If voting changed anything they’d abolish it

Elections are exciting. They offer the possibility of change. They allow us to see just how popular our opinions are with an electorate who we will have spent considerable time and effort trying to convince.  They are, so we are told, the lifeblood of democracy. The ability to vote and be voted for are what makes our society free. Those who do not believe in elections, we are from time to time reminded, are authoritarian dictators who threaten our way of life. I’m sure we have all repeated these obvious truisms whilst at the same time agreeing with the title of Ken Livingstone’s 1988 book: “If voting changed anything they’d abolish it”. So what is going on here?

Although we have a variety of elections, the ones we get most excited about in the U.K. are general elections. And, nowhere is it more obvious that the entire charade is a big con trick designed to present the illusion of choice whilst narrowing the debate to variations on a narrow theme. The myth of elections, and it is a myth subscribed to by both left and right party activists, is that elections allow you the opportunity to choose between competing visions of the way society should look. 

It is certainly true that the Conservatives tend toward a vision of a business-led free market economy in which ‘personal responsibility’ is the cornerstone of social policy. The Labour Party, except for a brief period under Jeremy Corbyn and perhaps even then, takes an approach to government which places far more emphasis on state regulation and intervention. I’m not going to compare the Liberal Democrat’s, Greens or Scottish National Party not because they are unimportant but simply because the same basic myth endures there too. Each are offering variations on a predetermined theme. 

The fact is, therefore, that parliamentary elections in Great Britain and for that matter most of the so-called democracies, offer only a narrow choice between slightly more or less state intervention. As Wilkinson and Pickett note in their excellent book ‘The Spirit Level’ (2009): “Mainstream politics..has abandoned the attempt to provide a shared vision capable of inspiring us to create a better society. As voters, we have lost sight of any collective belief that society could be better. Instead of a better society, the only thing almost everyone strives for is to better their own position - as individuals - within the existing society.” In America the Presidency is a competition between two, usually white, millionaires promising to do something about diversity and then ruling primarily in the interests of the white majority.

Inequality matters

This is not unimportant. As Wilkinson and Pickett show how we deal with issues around inequality can make a huge difference to the lives people are allowed to live. As they note: “Inequality is associated with lower life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, shorter height, poor self-reported health, low birthweight, AIDS and depression.” (P.81) To which list we might now add susceptibility to COVID 19. In this context what policies the government of the day pursue matters. If you are currently on universal credit and a new government comes in with policies that either help you into better paid work or increase the level of the benefits you receive that is not an insignificant change in your life. 

But, the history of all democracies, perhaps the World, is one of decreases in poverty levels followed by periods of greater poverty. As Susan George (not the actor) wrote in the 1980’s in response to the question why, given that they profess to dislike poverty, inequality, pollution etc do “they, I mean those ill-defined groups in positions of power” not do something about it? The answer then, as now, is a simple one “it is not in their interests to change anything that would simultaneously reduce their power, prestige or profits.” (George, 1986, p.271) Democracy is not a goal, in and of itself, it is a convenient myth that allows ordinary people the illusion that they have some control over systems that many people do not even realise exist, let alone want to change.

I am often frustrated at how people with, relatively, comfortable lives can simply ignore the suffering of others. Even worse than just ignoring poverty and inequality people find it easy to blame those whose main function in life seems to be to remind others that there is a “lower” they can sink to. Of course, one of the most pernicious myths of all is that your place in the social hierarchy is determined by your individual character. Voting, we are often reminded, is equal. Your vote counts just as much as the managing director of a large multinational corporation. At one level this is true, but if you were the manager of a large multinational corporation (if any are reading this do get in touch) your ability to influence government policy is infinitely greater than even those of us who have taken the trouble to join a political party.

Some people on the left have tried to convince me of the importance of membership of the Labour Party. One of the arguments they use is that through my involvement with the party I can influence the direction of the party. I have only ever been a member of the Labour Party so cannot speak to how these things work in other parties. But, in the Labour Party votes taken at branch and constituency meetings which had policy implications routinely disappeared into a democratic black hole. If there was feed through to the Shadow Cabinet (I was never a member when we were actually in Government) I can’t recall ever receiving that feedback. Even motions sent to party conference disappeared into that oblique system of party management called ‘compositing’ which seemed to have as its main function ensuring that the party leadership were not embarrassed by too many motions with which they did not agree. However, the fail safe if constituency activists managed to sneak something radical past the compositing committee was the block vote held by, predominantly, right-wing union leaders which was used to keep Labour firmly embedded in the centre ground. The left use the myth of democracy to keep people obsessing about internal elections in the forlorn hope that if enough of us join the party that we will transform it into a socialist party which will transform Great Britain. This fails, in my opinion, to recognise both the nature of the Labour Party and the nature of the parliamentary democracy to which the party is committed.

Parliamentary democracy

There is a website called The History of Parliament which tells us that the Westminster Parliament first came into being in 1386, a long time ago. Indeed, the Houses of Parliament pre-date capitalism by about 350 years (there is no exact date for the beginning of capitalism as it was more of a process than an event). But, capitalism changed the meaning of Parliament by slowly opening up the franchise until in 1928 the vote was given to all adults aged over 21. It was not until 1969 that the franchise was extended to eighteen year olds and there it has remained since, except in Scotland and Wales where the devolved governments are now voted for by all aged 16 or above. 

Every extension of the franchise was fought tooth and nail by those who already had it. If women, or workers or young people were to get the vote it would signal the end of democracy. It is a strange feature of democracy that the only way to defend it is to ensure it is not too widely available. As the LSE’s Jo Murkens has argued: “The motivation behind and purpose of the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 were anything but democratic. .... They were anti- democratic measures that served to strengthen government and the House of Commons and to create legal obstacles that working class men and women still had to fight to overcome.” The point being that democracy was ceded only to prevent a greater threat. Over time, of course, as the franchise was extended so the story of universal suffrage came to be told as one of progressive liberalism and the fact that the predecessors of the current House of Lords overwhelmingly opposed every step in the direction of democracy is conveniently airbrushed out of history with suffrage’s opponents being presented as cranky and in a minority.

Of course, what is now obvious is that those who opposed universal suffrage really had nothing to fear. Since 1920 the Conservatives have been in power for 73 years. Small periods of Labour domination have not heralded the ‘revolution’ they feared but rather brought in a series of reforms that have, on the whole, proved beneficial to the capitalist economy. Marx once described how the capitalist system required what he termed a “reserve army of labour”. In Capital he describes how those employed are constantly forced to work harder in order to create more and more surplus value. In order to keep wages down there is also a “reserve army”. The balance between these competing parts of the labouring classes is essential for the enrichment of the capitalist class. 

“The overwork of the employed part of the working class swells the ranks of the reserve, whilst conversely the greater pressure that the latter by its competition exerts on the former, forces these to submit to overwork and to subjugation under the dictates of capital. The condemnation of one part of the working class to enforced idleness by the overwork of the other part, and the converse, becomes a means of enriching the individual capitalists.”

Capital, most ably represented by the Tories in Britain, is greedy. Not only does the nature of the system seek to keep wages low, but in order to extract the maximum surplus value also seeks to ensure that other parts of the system are designed to maximise their profits. This includes such things as health and safety which are usually opposed on the grounds that they are “inefficient”, meaning that they cost money. Taxes are also seen as a burden on businesses hence corporation tax must be kept low to enable entrepreneurs to do what they do best - make money for themselves. And, things such as social security and the health service, whilst desirable, do not appear to individual capitals as their responsibility. Things such as pensions are still a relatively new innovation. The first state pension was only introduced in 1908 and was paid to those aged over 70. According to ONS “In 1908 when the State Pension was first introduced for those aged 70 and over, a woman of this age was expected to live on average an additional 9.3 years, and a man 8.4 years, meaning pensions needed to last around 9 years.” The pension age was reduced to 65 in 1925 and then for women to 60 in 1940. Every reduction had opposition from those who could most afford to live without state help. The current pension age is 67 (for women and men) set to rise to 68.

There is no parliamentary road to socialism

The point is that Government can bring in measures to alleviate the conditions of those who have to work for a living. But, they can reverse those conditions when it suits them. What this means is that government is one of the levers in a liberal society used to maintain the status quo. The media play an important role in supporting this status quo, and trade unions and the right to campaign offer a counter-balance. Elections are not unimportant and to be sure, it is better to have a socially liberal government than a rapacious pro-capitalist one. But neither can lead to socialism. The election of a radical socialist party could provide an indication of popular discontent with the social system, but if parliament was to fall under the sway of those who would seek to dismantle it there are other levers the capitalist class can use to restore the “natural order”.  The reality is that we live in a liberal political and economic system. Parliamentary democracy is not essential to maintain the power and privilege of the elite but it is a convenient way to beguile people into thinking their views actually matter, whilst at the same time the elite carry on as if nothing has changed for two hundred years.

For some no doubt this narrow choice is unproblematic for it leads to one of two conclusions. One is to withdraw from electoral policies altogether. Some 33% of registered adults in the U.K. did not vote in 2019 where it could be argued there was, for a change, clear water between the two main parties. The other, very fond on Labour’s left, is to argue that what we need is more left-wingers in Parliament to bring about the radical change the country so desperately needs. I confess that I once held this view myself. I am not constructing an argument here for abstention. Too many lives were lost to gain the vote for us not to use it. Neither is this an argument to leave the Labour Party. I’ve made my position on that issue clear previously. It is rather an argument that whilst supporting the most socially liberal candidate at elections (which may or may not be the Labour candidate) the left, by which I mean those who seek a change from capitalism to socialism, should not place their faith in parliament to do anything but manage liberalism. 

Parliamentary elections are capitalism’s way of conferring legitimacy on an illegitimate social system. They are not meant to be, neither have they ever been, a legitimate means to overthrow capital. It took the capitalist class a while to realise this. They are not, after all, the brightest people on the planet despite what they might like to tell themselves. By tying up their opponents in a 4 or 5 year cycle of electioneering they distract thousands of activists who might otherwise be working for their downfall. It is a neat trick. There are plenty of people who will tell you that unless you support Labour (or the Democrats if you are American) you are helping the Tories. What that argument fails to recognise is that, with a few honourable exceptions, the Labour Party (and Democrats) are full of conservatives who have no interest in liberating the working class or bringing about the end of capitalism. The proof is to be found at the way they recoil from genuine working class led movements preferring to deflect everything onto parliament.

Elections are fun and they are exciting but they are not plebiscites on the social system. So long as we keep our eyes on the long game (socialism) then it is okay to engage in the short game (whichever election is happening currently). Sadly far too many people who profess to be interested in the long game devote their entire lives to the short game and rather than bringing about the end of liberalism encourage a belief which helps to maintain it.

While you’re here: if you like what you’ve just read why not use the subscribe button on the top right to get notified of future posts.

Also, Labour Party: Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn - Sign the Petition! https://www.change.org/p/labour-party-reinstate-jeremy-corbyn