Beyond Elections: The Next StepBy Andrew McLeod The fall elections are bearing down upon us, and we are once again presented with a lesser-of-evils choice. The semi-viable Nader-LaDuke Green ticket is mixing things up from the left, while Buchanan and Foster lead a splintered Reform party in from right field. But the disruption to business-as-usual is unlikely to significantly surpass that caused by Perot in 1992; when all is said and done, we will almost certainly see a continuation of the Clinton administration's cynical neoliberalism or a return to the Reagan-Bush dynasty. Even if Nader or Buchanan manage to pull off upsets in a few states, that is unlikely to have any effect on the nation's politics other than furrowed brows at the ruling parties' think tanks as they try to figure out how to woo back these wayward voters for 2002. The function of the electorate will remain little more than to rubber-stamp a decision made well outside of the public discourse. So we should look at whether we are offered any real choices, and we should be skeptical that it is even possible for democratic decision-making to take place within the current framework. Our ability to shape our lives has mostly been reduced to an occasional trip to the polls, while everyday life is becoming progressively less free or democratic. Why do we expect that citizens can spend the majority of our lives - most notably in school and work - being bossed around, and then wake up one morning in November and take control of our own destinies? It is telling that the most common argument that I have heard against voting Green is that Bush Jr. might move into the White House. Meanwhile Buchanan supporters are threatened with Gore. But as long as we submit to this perpetual blackmail by the two parties, we will never get a chance to move beyond the fear that the worse of evils will take over and commit oppressive mischief like more welfare "reform," or banning abortion. A parable sticks in my mind of a man sitting on a riverbank. He sees a person floating by, struggling against the current. He jumps in and rescues the person, but no sooner are they onshore when someone else comes floating by. So he jumps back in and repeats his good deed. And again there comes someone down the stream. This time, he turns and begins running upstream. Those already rescued cry out in indignation at his lack of compassion for the drowning, to which he calls back, "I'm going to find out who's throwing them in." We must always keep in mind that elections are the turf of the powerful and moneyed, and any number of victories in that arena will not change that reality. As long as we play by the system's rules on its uneven field, we are likely to keep losing even if we get the Democratic consolation prize. Those who have experience in organizing around a voting-oriented campaign know from experience the demoralizing effect of pouring months of work into the effort, seeing it win the support of almost half of the voters and still count for nothing. On the other hand, what would it look like to have put that effort into building a new, consensus-based political system? On the surface, it seems callous to turn our backs on the electoral process and focus our efforts on the uncertain and invisible source of the problems. Perhaps the war on the poor will intensify; perhaps reproductive rights will be whittled away. But, perhaps they won't. Notice that just because we turn upstream does not mean that those struggling against the current are doomed. Certainly they lose their chance to be saved by us, but perhaps there are others who will help them, or perhaps they will find the shallows and get out on their own. However, if we continue to dive into the electoral system time and time again, we will surely become exhausted and be no closer to solving the problem of "who's throwing them in." Voting and working radically outside of the existing political system may not be mutually exclusive; but spending more money, time and energy on one will tend to decrease the amount of those resources available for the other. Voting - and voting disruptively - is an important act, as it announces that we are not just complacent or apathetic. But once an individual sees that her or his tactics are not pushing the envelope as much as they could be, and may even be deepening our current political rut, it is time to change tactics. Leave the repetitive two-year and four-year cycles of electoral salvage work to those who don't see the larger pattern yet, and look for the next step. This begs the question that has spawned a million arguments and a thousand factions: What is the next step? I don't claim to know the answer for everyone. But after a decade of spending time in a variety of social movements I have noticed a common thread: People tend to feel that there should be more power given to individuals by means of less-centralized political systems than we currently enjoy. Before we can all get together and decide how society should run, we need to figure out what methods of decision-making work for us. Do they yield intelligent decisions that are respected by participants in the process, as well as bystanders? Do they examine the options without taking excessive time or resources? How do we deal with conflicting decisions made by different groups in a way that don't disempower one or the other? Obviously no one knows the answer to these questions. We must learn as we go, and keep deciding how to decide based on that learning. One important place to begin this learning process is in the workplace. If we can create opportunities for people to earn a living without submitting to a boss, it will help to provide a re-education in how to truly behave as citizens in a democracy. Not only will this help us to individually avoid 40 hours a week of being indoctrinated into systems of control, but the small size of the typical collective workplace is useful practice at decision-making in a discrete project. Such baby steps are essential before we embark on making more complex decisions like setting standards for what sort of buildings may be built in a particular watershed. Eventually we will get the hang of behaving as equals in small groups where everyone knows each other. Then we can create systems of direct democracy beginning at the community and regional levels and working up to the mammoth task of figuring out how to deal with the mess that will be left behind by the electoral system. Andrew McLeod recently moved to Olympia after two years in Alaska. He can be reached via email at amcl@iww.org
Back to Home page. |
