[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader makes no apologies to criticize the model of democracy most of us live-under the world over. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
–No one would freely choose to work their entire life to make others rich, yet the system requires that most people do.
1. The electoral system is thoroughly undemocratic. It denies the existence of classes and class conflict by treating society as a collection of individuals with equal power to decide social priorities. In reality, we are divided into classes with opposite interests. (Marx believed that a revolution would be necessary to break the very apparatus of class domination). To maintain the oppressive class arrangement in the social pact of Capitalism, a layer of professional ‘compromisers’ binds bosses and workers. Mass protests aim to pressure compromisers and policy makers to change what they are doing. Yet the masses of potential claim holders still have insufficient clout to impose penalties when the elites refuse/resist. The sole threat against the elites has been to vote them out of office. But this is an idle threat when no established political party with that power is on the side of workers. Workers’ movements thus remain morality-based.* Yes, the goal of mass protest and civil disobedience is to pressure authorities to be socially responsible. The appeal is for reason and compassion. But…
*: According to the International Trade Union Confederation, the link between democracy and trade unions means only one thing: You cannot have one without the other.
2. We (sadly) believe we can succeed if only a critical mass of people write, phone, and petition their elected representatives. Such moral outrage does not deliver though. It is moralistic to insist that we can change society by convincing individuals to make different choices. It is unrealistic to think such choices exist and are available to anyone. Elite professionals may have such choices, but that is not the experience of working-class people struggling for their inalienable rights. (all excerpted from S. Rosenthal)
3. Moreover, the current electoral system affirms the principle that it is the electors who choose their leaders, and not the latter who present their candidacies to get themselves elected. This creates a justified lack of confidence. In a direct democracy, if the elected candidate betrays the will of the electorate, he or she is simply recalled and replaced by a new trustworthy leader.**
**: The Paris Commune affirmed that it is the people, that is to say, all the citizens gathered together who make decisions, either directly or by demanding their rights from their rulers. (Paris Commune, 1871).
4. The system of direct democracy is linked to a conception of politics founded on the principle of effective popular sovereignty, and not only a declared sovereignty (lip service). This conception of politics seeks to establish a form of government by the people and for the people. Thus, the executive power is (supposedly) closely subject to the double control of the legislative*** –made up of the elected representatives of the congress– and the electorate. Why? Because the power of the executive is dangerous when it escapes the control of the legislature; it can (and often does) one-sidedly interpret the laws and violates legislative decisions, often with impunity.
***: The legislative power should be the very expression of social conscience. (Marx)
5. The existing political party system actually stands between electors and representatives. As a result, the candidates are not chosen by the electors, but by the parties. It is no longer the people who are sovereign. It is thus our electoral system (organized by the political parties) that prevents the people from exercising their sovereignty.****
****: By usurpation, the parties become masters of society instead of being its servants.
6. In our current system, the transfer of sovereignty takes place from the people to the elected –and that is how our elected become our masters. The electors have no other recourse to make themselves heard but by launching petitions, engaging in demonstrations, in strikes, in judicial appeals and other extremely complicated means…. The objective is to make social justice prevail by creating public power in the hands of electors –in other words, to constitute a ‘popular representation’ with ‘mandataries’ controlled by the electors, i.e., electing ‘servants of the people instead of having masters. (Juan Pablo Cardenas and Florence Gauthier)
7. In every nation, the mask of democracy is slipping to reveal a profit-driven system that rules by naked force –at home and abroad. Audre Lorde (American civil rights activist, 1934 –1992) warned that we cannot use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. The United Nations (UN), the IFIs*****, the International Criminal Court of justice (ICCJ), the legal system, and the electoral system are all the masters’ tools. They protect the masters’ rule by providing fake democratic cover for an oppressive and thoroughly destructive system. (S. Rosenthal)
*****: Instead of addressing the key global structural problems, the World Bank and the IMF keep reaffirming the same failed recipes and human rights (HR) are certainly not in their respective horizons.
The popular sectors can no longer bear the uncertainty of a future that does not appear and, therefore, they have to hold on to something that gives them back a minimum of belief in better days (Álvaro García Linera)
—As wealth and economic power become increasingly concentrated, it is inevitable that liberal democracy is and will be threatened. (Martin Wolf) …wither HR.
8. The so-called ‘democracy’ has radically transformed social structures, disempowering workers who have begun to accept the discourse of the Extreme right. It has been the traditional Right, as well as social democracy that have subordinated themselves to neoliberalism, that have opened the way for the Extreme right. The concentration of wealth has multiplied several times over, not only in the centers, but also in the countries of the periphery.
9. For its part, the Left, that questions neoliberalism, is very weakened, without sufficient strength to de-facto articulate itself with the existing social movements; neither has it offered a credible and viable project to transform the neoliberal regime as is demanded by popular interests.
10. The advance of the Extreme right is inexorable and its ideas are becoming cultural hegemony. So, with a marginalized Left, the Extreme right then presents itself as an alternative to confront the lack of protection and security. Although a defender of Capitalism, in a phony way, the Extreme right presents itself as allied to the citizenry, against the traditional ruling classes, showing itself to be distinct to those who have historically been in charge. And, in their desperation, the people believe them despite the fact that this group rejects the ideology of the global and embraces the narrow doctrine of patriotism and protectionism. The Extreme right contradicts the globalizing aims of capital and primarily aspires to maximize profits on a planetary scale. (Luis Herrera, Roberto Pizarro)