Nine Reasons Not To Vote... : Melbourne Indymedia

What we know as Democracy is nothing more than a fleeting moment of illusory power. Once every few years we are allowed to select a new ruler from a virtually identical selection – very similar to our sacrosanct freedom to choose from a myriad of prosaic commodities. In our supposedly democratic political system, our participation rarely ventures beyond the ballot box, resulting in apathy and boredom. Voting extinguishes our yearning for direct action and stultifies our ability to organise together without hierarchy. We are constantly placing our desires in the hands of someone more competent, someone more deserving……..always someone else.

The political system exists as an integral State apparatus. Its primary concern is self-preservation. As such, electoral politics permits only nominal, superficial and ultimately innocuous change. If there was the slightest prospect of the political system inducing systemic change, the State would promptly disassemble it.

Irrespective of a party’s’ alleged progressiveness or the faithful promises of politicians, the most “radical” of governments will only ever be able to implement the most tenuous of reforms. This is because regardless of ones position on the political spectrum, government’s will always be subject to the intolerable pressure of both state and capital. Both these powers have inveterate interests - the continuation of current economic and political structures – and wish to maintain their own existence. If a government was to threaten the interests of these powers, both have effective means – including bureaucratic campaigns and economic disinvestment – at their disposal to deter and prevent such actions.

While governments may implement piecemeal policy changes for the better – such as the reformation of Australia’s immigration policy or the improvement of Medicare – these ameliorations will never challenge capitalism, the state or our hierarchical society. How can problems such as patriarchy, racism, heterosexuality and ecological destruction be solved by the very system that creates them? A government does not posses the power to radically alter economic and institutional structures; this power is monopolised by international commerce, trans-national corporations and their protector – the state. That is, until we recognise and seize our capacity to transform the world and our lives.

By participating in the electoral system you validate government. Will an isolated and exclusive body of politicians – governed by elite powers - ever be capable of making the correct decisions for you, your family or your community? Can anyone accurately represent your interests? In fact, do you really want representatives to make and implement decisions for you? Surely we can resolve dilemmas, discover solutions and determine our own lives without recourse to alienating mediation, that is, indirect action and representation.

Voting is incredibly disempowering as it abdicates control over our own lives by forwarding that control to someone else. By voting we are involved in perpetuating our own oppression and reinforcing the notion that government authority of any mannerism is right, effective or superior to self-governance through voluntary association.

Political abstention does not entail apathy. To the contrary! By refusing to endorse the farce that is representative democracy you can channel your efforts into direct action and the free self-organisation of your workplace, neighbourhood and community. By refusing to vote you oppose the eternally oppressive state and the very concept of representation and take back the right to pursue and achieve your goals through cooperation rather than an external authority.

We are individuals who, knowingly or not, lust authentic life. Renouncing control within the political and economic spheres of society results in losing control of our personal life. If your life appears vacuous or lacking sensation and excitement you can be assured it’s largely due to the fact that we are excluded from decisions and actions that affect our lives profoundly.

We can construct an alternative to the state, capitalism and faux democracies. We can build truly democratic assemblies in our community, self-managed workplaces without bosses and self-managed schools, all replete with passion and colour. We can coordinate transport and health locally from the bottom up, ensuring our needs and desires are met. These can then multiply and evolve, allowing real participation, communication and genuine individual freedom to germinate in the most unexpected of places. As such organisations grow and expand, becoming increasingly self-sufficient, we can federate with others and manage resources through non-hierarchical networks. In doing this, we create a sizeable counter-power, one that can directly confront and destroy the state and all forms of power, reclaiming our world and our lives in the one impetuous grasp.

-The Ministry of Subjectivity

This article will soon appear in leaflet format at http://www.geocities.com/smashthespectacle/

Please distribute the leaflet (or similar) widely, particularly Australian readers as the electoral spectacle is fast approaching.

When we get to manage resources through non-hierarchical networks and we encounter an irreconcilable difference of opinion amongst us as to what course of action we should take in a particular matter, what resolution strategies do you see being presented? Who would make the final decision?

A good question. A fine question - and a perfectly reasonable one to ask. Jump this hurdle and you're well on your way to understanding anarchist philosophy.

It is instructive, of course, (although it doesn't answer the question) to first look at what happens under hierarchical systems, such as the current one, when a problem of "irreconcilable" differences as Pierre mentions arises. I hardly have to paint that picture: anyone with open eyes will have experienced or observed such situations on a daily basis in this society. What happens is that someone gets shafted. 99.9% of the time it's the poor and powerless and/or minority groups, and given the mechanisms of power, very often it has little to do with the relative merits of their case.

For example, take the case of gay marriage vs religious dogma. The Liberals refuse to legalise it because for the most part they’re actually against it. Many of those in the Labor party however probably either support the concept or couldn't really care less about it but because they fear it's not a vote winner, they also refuse to legalise it. So the issue is not really resolved by the current system, it's just swept under the carpet. The same is true for abortion, asylum seekers, aboriginal health, war in Iraq; the list goes on and on...

So although the current political system may "decide” upon issues of "irreconcilable differences" it rarely if ever actually resolves them.

We all know that elections are fought on only a handful of issues - 2 or 3 at the most, and despite the merits of all the various social and moral arguments about any number of issues, if people are concerned for example that their interest rates might rise more under one party than another, the election may well be decided accordingly.

The illusion of the current system is that for a party to have a majority of one seat in a parliament elected every 3 or so years, often gained by scaring the general populace over a mere handful of issues, gives that party a mandate to decide upon any other issue that is presented to it. This is only tempered slightly by the two house system, which allows some of the minor parties to obstruct some bills and provides a small amount of leverage for negotiation on some issues.

So again, the current system doesn't actually resolve irreconcilable issues, it simply decides them - often unfairly. You can tinker with parliamentary/governmental systems but the result is always the same. Governments be they capitalists, socialist, fascist, whatever, will act with whatever means necessary to protect the interests of those who put them in power. It stands to reason - it simply follows the laws of self preservation.

But this doesn't answer the original question of how things would work in a non hierarchical system.

Any system of social organisation presented as a viable alternative to the current one must be able to deal with all the challenges that humanity and nature present. Hospitals, schools, public transport and all manner of social infrastructure must be maintained and developed.

Of course there are going to be differences of opinion on how to go about this and indeed at one time or another, on almost every facet of daily life - it's natural and it's part of what it is to be human. However, where a non-hierarchical system succeeds over a hierarchical one is that because every issue would be dealt with separately, issues would be addressed on their merits rather than being subject to the undercurrents of various hidden political agenda.

In a non-hierarchical system, the ability of people to form groups to gain political power over other people would be made obsolete because if you could have your say (and vote) on every issue that concerned you, there would be no benefit in voting along "party lines" when it didn't. In other words, because no-one would be elected to government, any collective group would only survive as far as the interests of each individual within the group naturally take it.

This is natural, organic democracy, in the true sense of the word and it's surprisingly effective. In fact it's the very system that's used every day by people all over the world who have to make group decisions without an "overseeing" government. To implement it on a larger scale, i.e. federated local/regional/national/world collectives would perhaps require a large leap of imagination for many but then in the times of feudal monarchy many were adamant that they could never survive without a king.

Of course, this is all anathema to nationalist-capitalists and the various religious organisations and other institutions of power currently in existence because they realise they could not survive and continue to exploit the rest of us under such a system. It's even anathema to many socialists who believe in some kind of benevolent government. An admirable thought but an unlikely one.

Finally, to put it simply, when matters of so called "irreconcilable differences" arise under a non-hierarchical system, (and why differences may in fact turn out to be not irreconcilable after all is another topic) it would be the people who were concerned with the outcome who would resolve them. This may not always be quick, it may not always be easy, and ultimately it may not satisfy everyone all of the time - no system is perfect - but at least it would be a long sight fairer and more open to reason prevailing than any governmental systems ever could be.

Groucho Marx once said that he'd never be a member of a club that would have him as a member. It's a pity that most politicians don't follow his reasoning.

Ok I have only voted once in my life and wont be voting in this election but here are some points to consider... 

1. By advocating not voting all you do is take votes from the progressive parties such as the Greens etc. They may not be perfect but it is better to have Bob Brown there to argue against the Iraq war etc than nobody at all.
 
2. It is better to argue for voluntary voting because the issue is about your political rights NOT which tweedle wins the next election.
 
3. If the left refuses to participate in elections it opens itself up to quite valid criticism that it has not used the already availiable avenues to try to get the message across.
 
4. Campaigns for informal votes are WAY MORE EFFECTIVE than abstaining. For example the Franklin Dam campaign got about 40% of people writing "NO DAMS" in on their ballot paper in some places. This shows the political motivation for not voting RATHER than pollies being able to put it down to "apathy" etc.

Wow corporate sympathisers like the independent media center actually encouraging people NOT to vote. Has indymedia veered toward the ultra-left and away from its otherwise marxist image. Still my oppoinon remains the same- WHERE THE FUCK IS ANARCHIST ACTION!

"Anarchist action" is inside yr thick head. Get a life moron.

To which I would simply add that we seek to bring forward worlds best practise open and accountable justice practise in it's most evolved forms. This could include the rights listed in the holy parchment of the Amerikan constitition imho. Alternatives could also include the Euro model and mediation/consensus along with new means of direct action justice through combinatorial auction.
A diverse and distributed justice system is a healthy global justice system and the best way forward toward global justice is obviously using anarchism.

A truly democratic, tolerant and free society will continue to be undermined unless we defend those hard won freedoms and rights - by any memes necessary.

well i dont vote for one reson its not democratic to be forced to vote (compulsory voting) &how can one person make decisions for all of us and this system sucks i was talking to a work mate he said that its peolpe like you who dont vote let howord get in well how can ya vote for a government that have comitted genocide on aboriginal peoples http://www.aboriginalgenocide.com.au

I'll still vote simply because I don't see any point to abstaining from voting unless there is a serious direct democratic movement to support instead.

Although I would expect all those anarchists refusing to vote to then carry through this action of non-participation with a refusal to pay the fine.

I have recieved several fines for not voting and diddn't pay any of them - they don't actually bother to collect them. Still though I agree that individuals not voting is fairly pointless... About as pointless as voting really. Informal votes or votes for progressive parties would be much better for this election.

the past couple of days i've seen this 'don't vote' agenda on indymedia. passing strange??? please don't play your games here. never has it been so vital for politically concerned citizens to make their voice heard and with the media blocked to all but the corporate few, a vote on october 9 may be the only chance people will get for another 3 years. VOTE.

what kind of crap is indymedia up to lately? have noticed this heavy emphasis on trying to prevent people from voting. sounds like the republican tricks going on in the great USA where blacks and other minorities are being intimidated. there could not be an election where a vote is more important, so cut the crap and leave people to decide on their own. isn't it bad enough the media is open to none but the corporate few. why the attempt to stop the politically concerned from voting? hey?

Look guys, I understand that what we call democracy may not be close to real sense of the word, but when two thirds of the world livde in countries where you can't vote at all, I think we should use what little power have to our advantage. It's nice to dream about "smashing the state", etc., but this is the world we live in NOW. As they say "use it or loose it".

Yeah. Good one. Don't vote - that'll REALLY stop howard from getting in./

Don't worry - I'm SURE the revolution's on its way.

>the past couple of days i've seen this 'don't vote' agenda on indymedia. passing strange??? please don't play your games here. never has it been so vital for politically concerned citizens to make their voice heard and with the media blocked to all but the corporate few, a vote on october 9 may be the only chance people will get for another 3 years. VOTE.

"play games"? err, this is INDY media which means it's an alternative forum to discuss things which ARE'NT in the Herald-scum or the Age. (CORPORATE papers) It's good to talk about this stuff because it raises questions which go to the heart of the corrupt system. Anarchists have as much right to speak here as anyone else. Nobody's 'forcing' you to not vote or to read stuff about not voting. Post your own articles. As for the "corporate few", rofl - you're asking people to vote for CORPORATE political parties!

Well, excuse me, but I feel pretty stupid. Do you really all believe that votes are, actually, counted? All of them???
Because, if you all think so, (well you're acting like it's true), then I must be wrong. I, stupidly, thought that if George could "rig" his own election, then so could Howard or anyone else, especially under the brilliant guidance of America. This is the new "big arsehole world" in it's shining glory, I thought. And I don't see any difference between federal elections or state elections.
Whoever wants to get in, if they have the right connections, WILL get in, however they have to do it. Anyway, either I'm wrong or ALL OF YOU ! I don't trust anyone in Australia, anymore. I'm sad and very mad.