Elections!!

Where does one start when raising questions about the effectiveness of elections in modern times?

Are elections really serving all people, particularly those who are not rich and influential? How much do the powerful rich, with their investments in the economy and in the military, derail the hopes and promises of elections?

What about the background power structures and key decision-makers who are not even elected in a multilayered and complex system?

Have elections become outlets to ease the psychological tension built up in many societies between the powerful-mighty-rich, and the voiceless and unprivileged, rather than be an actual process of change?

Doesn’t electing a president, or a prime minister – a single person in an ‘alpha’ role – feel like an ongoing sense of déjà vu from centuries past? Is the pyramid of power a democracy? Or, do elections make a system democratic?

A truly effective and authentic election would serve the needs of all, not just the well-connected privileged classes but also the ordinary and not-so-rich, while also controlling and curtailing the power structure of non-elected entities. In other words, an election should indicate a “hegemony of the people”, ending the domination of the rich industrialists, military generals and their contractors, pharmaceutical and food industry CEOs, influential families and the lobbyists of all kinds in politics. An election is not about the charismatic personality or respectable background of the candidates, or their heartfelt and common sensical speeches, which often are what entice the voters the most. Elections are actually about the reality of the system, about whether it will actually allow these candidates to advance the cause of the underdogs and improve the quality of law that provides for and protects the basic dignity and wellbeing of the citizens.

One may ask: what is multilayered power structures? It is important to clarify that this is not deep-state conspiracy talk. These structures are comprised of people who are not elected and yet who influence the directions of things due to the political power and influence endowed by their wealth and connections – and this is no secret. Average citizens, in contrast, are not directly involved in politics except that they vote. They do not have the power to oversee or change the course of actions. Instead, imbalances of power are increasingly created by the entrenched, circular power structure that is created and upheld by vast wealth, policing and power. Money feeds into the system and the system controls the government decisions, which determine where the money goes –to the needs and interests of those upholding the system like the military and top political and industrial classes. This is why elections happen but change seems to penetrate only to a very superficial level. And at the bottom of the pyramid of power there are the people who are bombarded and influenced by the propagandistic, sensational media.

 Historically, we know how we got here: the old aristocracy, landowners, powerful families, wealthy founding fathers, etc. – but that no longer matters. The past is past. We are here now and it is time to make it right, rather than perpetuate that old model and act as if it is unchangeable. In fact, the bigger issue to ask is, who doesn’t want it to change, and why?

Elections are happening all over the world these days even in some archaic tribal and clerical systems – this year more than any other year in history. Elections are embraced because they seem to be the symbol of ‘democracy’. But who’s in charge, really?? We have witnessed the ineffectiveness of many elections around the world, on all continents. They give the pretext of people making the choices; voting creates the illusion of fundamental change. But if we are honest, perhaps we can admit that very often the change seems only cosmetic. Why would that be? Why does it seem to be so hard for the elections of politicians to result in making life better for people, and creating a more peaceful world? We have to acknowledge that there is a complex and multilayered system of “governance” that we only deal with on the surface, and that superficial level of interaction is called ‘election.’

The real purpose of an election should be to direct government resources and energy to the wellbeing of ALL citizens while stopping the exploitation of resources and abusive use of people’s entitlements and taxes. Why, for example, do so many countries have a huge military budget, and yet no dental care for their citizens? People should have a say where their tax money will be spent – on preventive medicine? housing? dental care? perhaps, more importantly, on PEACE rather than war?

So why do things not change on a fundamental level? Policy remains the same; regimes and structural power remains the same. In each election, we may see new faces who promise better things, but as the French saying goes: ‘Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose’ (The more it changes, the more it remains the same).

Enlightened Elections

 Therefore, rather than just electing yet another government for the façade, for the sake of shallow and trivial changes, we can identify two fundamental agenda items that need to be part of any enlightened election. A focus on elections as the means of fundamental improvement of all people’s wellbeing, and the elimination of the hidden monopoly of control by non-elected and influential elites through people’s awareness of and direct involvement in the frameworks of the underlying structures of power.

Let us address these two concerns in elections and the corresponding responsibilities of governments:

Item 1. Grounding the purpose of elections and casting a vote in wellbeing. Everyone, but particularly the non-rich, have three essential priorities for wellbeing, relevant in any election: food security (food prices), housing affordability and health care (coverage of the cost of medication and hospitalization), along with free and decent education for themselves and their children.

If these basics are not met, the question must be asked: why not? Where is the money going? In any elections, the voters may want to focus and trace the money and source of power rather than being deflected by the electoral details such as the charisma or lack of charisma of the candidates.

It must be established that elections are not swayed and manipulated by those who hold on to power, and those who donate obscene amounts of money to campaigns and thus influence election results. Even if they are influencing government in a direction, we ‘like’ or approve of, they are still having an undue influence on the system due to their massive wealth and power. And thus, people’s wellbeing becomes a very low priority.

The misperception of economic growth and about people’s socioeconomic situation is that because they buy cellphones, cars, microwaves and TV sets, they are seen as doing ‘just fine.’ But as Mathew Desmond puts it: “You can’t eat a cellphone. A cellphone doesn’t grant you stable housing, affordable medical and dental care or adequate child care.” In other words, economics can no longer be the only indicator of wellbeing.

In her book, Limitarianism: A Case Against Extreme Wealth, economist-philosopher Ingrid Robeyns sets out, “Extreme wealth concentration limits governments’ abilities to invest in public goods, such as education, health care and climate-change mitigation.”  She also points out, “scholars have increasingly documented how democracy can be undermined by the disproportionate political power of media tycoons, rich founders of philanthropic organizations and large political-party donors.”  The evidence for this is clear: “The richest 1% of the US population owns about as much wealth as the bottom 90%.” (Robeyns) And “as a growing literature in economics has shown, more wealth at the very top has often meant fewer resources to lift people at the bottom, contrary to the mantra of trickle-down economics.”

Through effective elections people must demand once and for all laws to be passed to protect the non-rich, the average and the poor, and to expand the resources for all, rather than just offer sweet talk and distracting the public with some secondary reforms. “Taxing the ultrarich by 5 percent could raise $1.7 trillion a year, enough to bring two billion people out of poverty, according to a report by Oxfam.”. But more often it seems that elected politicians pass extensive legislation designed to protect those who need protection the least – the rich, with their investments.

Sometimes the means that the rich use to build their wealth are legal, like tax loopholes. But ‘legal’ does not mean it is moral or right! And where do such legal loopholes originate? From the legislation passed by those who were elected and influenced by powerful interest groups, who count on them to develop such legislation, leading to the accumulation of extreme wealth.

As Robeyns said, “…calls for limits on wealth are as old as civilization itself…” It is not surprising that Plato was apprehensive about the potential civil war between the rich and the poor. His teacher and mentor, Socrates, rejected the kind of “electoral” democracy where candidates become politicians through their own influence and the wealth behind it. The domination of the rich which was so obvious during the times of Socrates and Plato continues to our day.

The non-rich and the poor need authentic elections and democracy the most in order to equalize their power and voice in the system. The poor are not necessarily those who have absolutely no money – the poor are those who have few choices in their life, and who struggle to be able to actually enjoy life. The invisible civil war between the rich and poor that Plato was troubled by is in fact the ‘emotional and structural violence’ inflicted on the disadvantaged, which is at times nauseating. They are those who have no say in the course of the big politics that affects their lives, unlike the rich and powerful who exploit and encroach upon that power of politics for their benefit.

To be fair, certainly there have been elections and charismatic politicians around the world who have made changes for the good, but these seem to be the exception. The rest seem to remain subject to larger forces.

Item 2. Explore innovative ways for everyone to have a real say in the use of power and money. This second agenda item is to find ways for average voters to be able to influence and reform the multilayered and complex system of power that currently lies in the hands of non-elected entities.

The fairness of elections is highly questionable when a group of wealthy people called the ‘donor class’, the military establishment, and interest groups including lobbyists, financiers, policy-makers, media propagandists and influential judges all either pour money into or throw their weight around in elections to swing politics to favor themselves and their interests. Even though their actions might be following the rule of law, such an election does not signal a true democracy or a demonstration of people’s power. Developing an awareness about this hegemony of the ruling elites and the wealthy is one of the biggest wins in any elections and the first step toward remodeling the government.

Are Elections Still the Solution? It’s time to think again!

Let us not be mistaken – the concept of elections is by and of itself a wonderful idea. But it has to be an important outlet for the voiceless as well as everyone else, to have equal say in the state of affairs. Otherwise, it is just an empty habit of the same supported by lots of propaganda.

In the Second Enlightenment, the sheer act of casting votes without effective results is no longer good enough. A system without accountability, without referenda on key issues, which funnels money toward things that do not improve the wellbeing of people or in fact even harms them, like nuclear testing, military actions, and ineffective health insurance, should be considered unacceptable today.

Awareness about the goal of an election and the benefits for people is half of the solution. The other half lies in how to make sure laws actually make food, housing, healthcare and development affordable and accessible for people rather than allowing money to flow in directions that only benefit the industrial power structures and the rogue players in politics.

Authentic elections would in fact result in elected, unbeholden politicians who put people first by supervising those institutions and industries such as the pharmaceuticals or food industries whose CEOs operate with the primary goal of profit, not necessarily to serve people. It means also having the courage to transfer a good part of the military budget to provide free healthcare and free education, not to mention the benefits of moving towards demilitarization and dialogue instead of more weapons.

‘Free and fair elections’ doesn’t mean simply no corruption in the electoral process. It means everyone is treated with dignity, and that all essential needs are considered valid. It also means that the processes and decisions of government are transparent and held accountable to the people.

Democracy should not be a fight. An enlightened society would not fall for theatrical elections which distract people like a boxing match, which use rhetoric like; ‘fight’, ‘defeat’, ‘eliminate’, ‘victory’, etc., eliciting a rush of adrenaline instead of serving as a sincere, collective effort to meet people’s life-changing needs. Even those groups or parties that we don’t agree with or care for are humans whose needs also need to be met. Everyone has a place in the society even though they differ in their views.

Solutions for new democracies in the Second Enlightenment are being generated and proposed as awareness grows. The key posts in a country require an electoral process in order to prevent abuse and corruption, and prevent funneling fund to sway elections. It means future governments will have to establish ‘Ministry or Department of Elections,’ which funds all necessary and approved elections and referendum so that no private funds can influence any election. It also means allowing the ultimate power to lie with people, having mechanisms to either call for referendum to replace the juggernaut of a system if it is abusive, or demand snap elections, or impeach those who violate the promises for the safety of the society (including the militaries who undertake unwarranted and dangerous wars). The rhetoric of ‘national security’ which is employed to justify more military and weaponization spending has to shift, placing the security and wellbeing of people first. In order to address how governments use public fund or tax money, perhaps some day there will even be a mechanism for the public to participate in the development of budgets and deciding how they want their tax money to be allocated. The legacy of a government and a state lies in its transparency and service to people.

Personally, change can start on three levels:

Expand Knowledge and awareness of where the essential agendas lie, without being distracted by theatricized debates or empty promises in electoral campaigns. Become aware of the underlying power, wealth and control of the key decision-makers. Begin to see through the rhetoric. It took a long time on a convoluted path to get here with so many knots of power; to untie those knots takes time and awareness.

Embrace a Change of Attitude towards a greater good and global justice, rather than be seduced by election enticements promised for personal gain through privileges or nationalistic slogans. In addition, commit to the principle of not causing harm to others through wealth or domination. This would be a transformative attitude for us all, as well as our governments. We reflect our governments; our governments reflect us back to ourselves.

Take personal steps by integrating this awareness and attitude, despite the juggernaut of power structure in the financial and political system. Implement what is moral and what benefits all, not just what benefits ‘ME’. Greed and the imposition of one’s individual will is a fractional part of any ‘bad government’ that denies those around me their fair share.

We are all each example of our own governments, protecting and meeting everyone’s needs around us – or not. This means promoting wellbeing, insisting on transparency and involvement, and maintaining elevated moral standards to defend what is right, not just what serves me. This means enacting democracy in one’s personal world, on a micro level. A personal sense of justice, thinking of others, and holding a non-contradictory mindset are what a fair election in action in a democracy would feel like.

Democracy is just another name we give to our friendliness; elections are only a tool. They are only the start, not the end.