Liberal democracy faces many challenges. Corruption, the rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism, and economic inequality have become major concerns. Voter suppression and corporate influence make democracy unattainable. There can never be true freedom if a ruling class has the majority of the power. A more troubling trend for democratic systems is non-participation. Millions of people in democratic governments do not vote. Citizens who were once enthusiastic about voting become disillusioned with the process. There are multiple reasons why people do not vote. Some may not be interested in politics or understand the system. Others may not see the relevance to their lives. A large portion of the public has become frustrated with politics and the general lack of progress. Voters may consistently vote for a certain candidate or party, but do not see substantive change. Incremental approaches to certain issues just are not adequate when circumstances are dire. Voters want to see or at minimal see that there are tangibles produced. The majority of liberal democracies have two party systems or multiparty systems. The dominant parties are either conservative, centre-left, or liberal in political ideology. Voters are normally left with a choice between either two parties. While some countries do have multiple political parties, they just do not have enough support to be formidable. This means citizens of a state do not have a variety in choice, rather two options. Realizing this, those running for political office do not have to produce significant results. The "lesser of two evils" has been a term used in American politics to describe this phenomenon. A leader does not have to do too much for their constituency, based on the fact voters will comeback based on the opposition. Both parliamentary and presidential systems function on this voter behavior. Senators, congressmen, and members of parliament became reliant on this fact. When voters come to the conclusion that change will not happen, they disengage. The lugubrious political reality is that their vote has been weakened and that public servants have failed them. Leaders who seek revolutionary change are either ostracized or condemned by the wider society. Without real representation certain groups of society do not vote. Once dedicated voters become disillusioned. Others completely reject political participation, because they believe leaders will never embrace new solutions to persistent problems.
A growing number of loyal voters are becoming disillusioned. This makes them become non-voters which has increased by millions of people. The reason once dedicated voters no longer are active is based on the fact leaders do not fulfill obligations of political office. The expectation is that certain problems will be solved, rather than just empty promises. New solutions and specific policies must be enacted to keep the public engaged. After many elections in a person's life time, without effective change there are many ways in which citizens react. Their are either dramatic turns to the left or right. A genuine leftist party in the case of the US does not exist rather a centrist Democratic Party that fails to adjust to the evolving political conditions. The option for the voter is to keep voting more conservative, which has dire repercussions. The more logical line of thought when faced with unfavorable choices is not to select one. If either candidate does nothing to improve or at minimum challenge the status quo, then voting would make no sense. Citizens vote with the idea that their voices and concerns will be heard. The only true guarantee of service is being part of the corporate structure, being of the highest socioeconomic status, or connections to lobbying organizations. The average citizen is low priority in relation to donors of political parties. Realizing that unconventional participation has limitations, the frustration only increases. If material conditions get worse, it could mean insurrection in a society. Building an efficient and effective government takes time. Yet, there are political forces that are actively preventing votes from having power. The Electoral College was designed to act as a consensus among popular election of a president and congressional selection. What the institution really does is prevent the voter's choice. Candidates running for office are either selected by corporate power or supported by certain think thanks. Grassroots politics remains at a disadvantage compared to corporate politics. The disparity in resources makes it difficult for new leaders not subject to the elite class to be successful. Voters who are knowledgeable at some level understand this. Knowing their is very little chance for reforming the political system, people stop voting.
Some reject politics and voting itself because it has become intensely vitriolic. The mere act of disagreement has become grounds for extensive arguments. Expression a certain perspective becomes offensive to others. Although liberal democracies preach freedom, there seems to be a strong impulse for conformity in thought. Even with personal choice to participate or not to do so is met with scorn. Those who refuse to participate are criticized as not doing their duty as a citizen. The more vituperative accusations is that non-voters are either lazy or uninformed. Dedicated voters are shamed for which candidate they decide to vote for. The disrespect for personal choice and a difference in thought is not an example of a functioning democratic system. Rational discussion and debate have been silenced by partisan tribalism. Mass media only causes more political factionalism in countries that are divided among political, racial, class, and religious lines. This explains the developments in the US, France, and UK. Politics has become a large arena of anger and contention, which most people repudiate. It is no wonder that some would not be politically active with so much negativity present in the public sphere. The divide transcends a simple political left and right paradigm. Sometimes it comes to reality versus politically constructed fiction. The various factions act as if they are in a war against some form of evil. The politics of fear transform into a vicious hate. Citizens see other citizens as enemies. The political contention spreads to other areas of life. Suddenly, everything becomes a political argument. Other perspectives, ideas , or opinions are regarded as farcical if they challenge the status quo or the general consensus among political factions. This is why new solutions to economic and social problems are difficult to implement. Devotion to a single mode of thought becomes more important than understanding the challenges of a state. Non-voters may be disgusted with unprofessional conduct and erratic behavior.
To keep people engaged, citizens need to be provided results . The loss in faith comes from not seeing any form of progress. When there is nothing to show for going to the polls, many may come to the conclusion the leadership is not worth supporting. Change does take time, but a slow gradual approach may not be enough to placate public demands. Voters may keep switching between various types of candidates during election cycles. After awhile this still may not produce the results that voters want to see. Understanding that particular changes will not happen, the mass of non-voters grows. Those running for office must do more to earn a person's vote. Simply saying you are more qualified or making an empty promise is not enough. There needs to be a specific statement of polices related to economics, foreign, and domestic affairs. A plan of political action must be utilized to demonstrate a candidate for office is serious about the issues effecting average people. Rhetoric about national unity or returning to some past era does not help people who are struggling now. Poverty and joblessness continues to effect millions. Economic inequality has not been challenged no matter who is elected to office. Racism and police brutality continue to remain a plague society, yet genuine reform has not materialized. Inaction becomes an indirect message to voters that politicians do not care. If leadership does not care about the populace, then there is no reason to vote. People need something to vote for, rather than against. Politicians became too comfortable with not providing anything, while winning elections by simply being an opposition candidate. Non-voters become frustrated, because they think that the majority of leadership does not care about the public. Votes must be earned and candidates must make more effort in terms of outreach. If this is not done more non-voters will increase in liberal democracies.
A growing sense of hopelessness has emerged among the section of the public. Voting can not stop the violence that comes from the state or radically alter the social structure. Dramatic change can only happen through revolution. Such events in history rarely came through a ballot box. The American revolution, Haitian revolution, Russian revolution, Mexican revolution, French revolution, and Cuban revolution would have never happened working within the existing political structure. Change could theoretically come through elected bodies on the condition that the ruling elite does not have too much control. Elected officials remain dependent on wealthy donors to finance campaigns. Thus, their ability to produces laws that would benefit the majority are limited. Leadership would never advocate revolution. Instead there are suggestions of reform. The millions of people who do not vote see it as a practice in futility. Few attempt to understand their actions or see why this feeling of lugubriousness is prevalent. Leaders offer no impressive vision of the future. Politicians have become managers of a system in decline. Ranked choice and third party options are a possible solution. However, two party systems seek to undermine smaller parties. Multi-party democracies have a number of parties with a certain amount of seats, yet not large enough to form a majority. Run off or snap elections just add to more complications in a political system. To an observer liberal democracy becomes a rather disorderly form of government. Politics at its core is not about helping people, rather the management of power. The notion of republicanism and a responsive to the will of the citizens is a concept relatively new to human history. These ideas from the Enlightenment spread in the 19th and 20th century. People become non-voters when it seems as if fighting the political structure is impossible. Voting is suppose to be a method in which a citizens uses their political power. Through powerful organizations, voter suppression, and electoral irregularities the citizen is depowered. Showing resistance to an oppressive political structure by voting may not be effective, because it only legitimizes it.
Liberal democracy's biggest threat may not be xenophobic nativist nationalism or economic collapse. It is the fact that the political structure has depowered the average citizen's vote. Corporate power has more representation making the political system less democratic. Some have become so vexed that they have abandoned voting completely. Lobbying, special interest groups, and the power of political action committees undermine the dedicated average voter. The majority do not question the political systems they were raised in. Conversations regarding these problems are either ignored or labelled conspiracy theory. This explains why reactions to questioning the electoral system or voting in general are met with a negative reaction. Winning elections does not require large masses. Many times just a few groups are enough to make it possible. The large dilemma is when more people become non-voters. What this does is enable the people who do vote to select leaders who may be more extremist in political ideology. Fringe movements can gain more political respectability in such an environment. The unfortunate consequence of freedom also includes the ability to make the wrong choice. Voting is not an indication of a well functioning democracy. Abuse can happen by leaders who were enabled by the voters. If voters select leaders that act against their own interest, then this can have devastating consequences. Votes can also be weaponized. The right-wing political establishment has used people's prejudice and fears to gain votes. The centre-left manipulates voters by demonizing progressives and socialism. The more astute can comprehend these tactics. There is a level of corruption in government that needs to be addressed. As long as a ruling elite have an abnormal amount of influence and power, voting will not be enough to stop them. People stop voting due to the fact they have little power. That only leaves the option of general strike, protest, or mass insurrection.
No comments:
Post a Comment